CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng., June 2019
ABSTRACT
Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.
Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.
The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).
The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.
The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.
Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.
Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.
There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.
Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.
“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.
There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.
Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.
HYPOTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Earlier conclusions by the author and others are reviewed that disprove global warming alarmism and the justification for CO2 abatement schemes.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 does NOT cause dangerous global warming. Humanmade global warming / climate change is a false crisis.
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.
The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.
This ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.
OBSERVATIONS
1a. In 2008 I made the following major observations in this paper:
Reference: “Carbon Dioxide Is Not The Primary Cause Of Global Warming”, January 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
a. The velocity of changes of atmospheric CO2 [dCO2/dt] varies ~contemporaneously with changes in global temperature (Fig.1a).
b. Therefore the integral of dCO2/dt, changes in atmospheric CO2, lag changes in global atmospheric temperature by ~9 months (Fig.1b).
Fig.1a – The very close relationship of dCO2/dt (red) vs global temperature (blue) is clearly apparent. Major volcanoes disrupt the relationship.
![clip_image002[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image00210.jpg?resize=628%2C317&ssl=1 "clip_image002[10]")
1b. Integrating the dCO2/dt data in Fig 1a gives changes in CO2, which lag changes in temperature by ~9 months (Fig.1b).
Figures 1a and 1b employ Mauna Loa (mlo) CO2 data. Similar results were observed using Global CO2 data, as in MacRae 2008. The impact of major volcanoes is apparent.
The 12-month delta in CO2 is used to allow for the “seasonal sawtooth” in the Keeling Curve.
Fig.1b – The ~9-month lag of atmospheric CO2 changes (red) after global temperature changes (blue) is apparent.
![clip_image004[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image00410.jpg?resize=628%2C304&ssl=1 "clip_image004[10]")
2. In 2013, a similar observation was made by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim – that atmospheric CO2 changes lag global sea surface and air temperature changes by 9-12 months (Fig.2).
Reference: “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
Global and Planetary Change, Volume 100, January 2013
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
a. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
b. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
c. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
Fig.2 – “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”, Jan. 2013
![clip_image006[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image00610.jpg?resize=628%2C409&ssl=1 "clip_image006[10]")
3a. The lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after Equatorial Pacific Ocean Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes is apparent (Fig.3a).
Fig.3a
![clip_image008[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image00810.jpg?resize=628%2C280&ssl=1 "clip_image008[10]")
3b. Like Fig.3a but with 13-month centered averages, the coherence of Nino34 SST changes with CO2 changes and the time lag are more apparent (Fig.3b).
Fig.3b
![clip_image010[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image01010.jpg?resize=628%2C283&ssl=1 "clip_image010[10]")
4a. In the following plot, Nino34 SST data is shifted later in time and offset and scaled for comparison with the CO2 mlo 12-month Deltas (Fig.4a).
The close correlation is apparent. Note that the CO2 mlo 12-month Delta is increasing, but the Nino34 SST is flat over the plotted interval.
Fig.4a
![clip_image012[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image01210.jpg?resize=628%2C281&ssl=1 "clip_image012[10]")
4b. In this plot, the 13-month averaged Nino34 SST data is shifted later in time and offset and scaled to compare with the CO2 mlo 12-month Deltas (Fig.4b).
Nino34 SST’s have a primary impact on changes in atmospheric CO2, as evidenced by this data. The governing mechanism is described below.
Fig.4b
![clip_image014[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image01410.jpg?resize=628%2C281&ssl=1 "clip_image014[10]")
5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:
UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)
Note the suppression of air temperatures during and after the 1982-83 El Nino, due to two century-scale volcanoes El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo.
Much of the atmospheric warming from ~1982-1996 (blue trend) was a recovery from the two major volcanoes – Nino34 SST’s (purple trend) cooled slightly.
I discovered this relationship in 2016 and published it, originally without the Sato correction as:
UAHLT = 0.20*Nino34SSTAnomaly + 0.15
I then found that Bill Illis previously had developed a better model, and I added the Sato correction that accounts for major volcanoes. Sato data was only available to 2012.
References:
Fig.5a – All data is plotted in real time.
![clip_image016[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image01610.jpg?resize=628%2C294&ssl=1 "clip_image016[10]")
Fig.5b – plotted with UAHLT actual temperatures in real time, and UAHLT temperatures calculated from Nino34 shifted 4 months later to show coherence. ![clip_image018[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image01810.jpg?resize=628%2C293&ssl=1 "clip_image018[10]")
6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
Fig.6a – Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity (offset) increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms…![clip_image020[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image02010.jpg?resize=628%2C280&ssl=1 "clip_image020[10]")
Fig.6b …and UAH LT Tropics Atmospheric Temperature leads UAH LT Global Atmospheric Temperature, which leads changes in Atmospheric CO2.
![clip_image022[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image02210.jpg?resize=628%2C280&ssl=1 "clip_image022[10]")
7a. Why does the lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after temperature changes equal ~9 months?
In a perfect sine wave, the integral lags its derivative by pi/2, or 1/4 cycle.
There should therefore be approximately a (4 times 9 months = 36 months) 3 year average period in the data.
The Nino34 data shows a 3.1 year average period (Fig.7a in Excel spreadsheet and Table 7a).
Global Lower Troposphere Temperature data shows a 3.1 year average period (Fig.7b and Table 7a).
Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 data shows a 3.1 year average period (Fig.7c and Table 7a).
The climate data are not perfect sine waves and the data are natural and chaotic.
Nevertheless, it appears that an approximate 3.1 year average period is present in all three datasets, as hypothesized.
The cycles are in phase with the lag of CO2 after Nino34 SST.
Fig. 7d – Nino34 SST changes, followed by UAH LT temperature changes, followed by atmospheric CO2 changes.
![clip_image024[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image02410.jpg?resize=628%2C295&ssl=1 "clip_image024[10]")
Further Support for the Hypothesis:
Based on Fig.3b, CO2 mlo data “peaks”(maxima) lag Nino34 peaks by an average of 0.81 years in an average Period of 3.28 years, and the Lag/Period is 0.25.
This Lag/Period is consistent with my hypothesis that the Lag/Period should equal ~0.25 or 1/4 period, or pi/2 in a full period of 2*pi radians (Table 7a).
Table 7a – Peaks Analysis – Periods and Lags in Years (Fig.3b)
7b. Statistical analyses support the existence of an average ~3.1 year period in the data for NIno34 SST, UAH LT temperature and atmospheric CO2, averaging ~3.6 years before year 2003.5 and ~2.5 years after 2003.5, as depicted in Figs. 7e to 7j (Excel spreadsheet) and Table 7b.
Table 7b – Divide Figure 7a, 7b, 7c data into pre-and post-2003.5 intervals and calculate the periods.
8. In 2015, I published the following paper summarizing my observations and conclusions to date. All these conclusions continue to be supported, based on more recent evidence.
Discussion:
Scientists who support the catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW) hypothesis say that based on physics at the molecular scale, they KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more CO2 will cause warming. Two questions: How much warming, and what are the scale-up effects?
How much global warming?
Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018) proved that climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is too low to cause dangerous warming – see Section #9.
Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales, including ~9 months in the modern data record and much longer in the ice core record. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes some mild warming, but full-earth-scale data prove that this CO2 warming effect is drowned out by the much larger impact of temperature on CO2.
Conclusion: Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Climate is NOT highly sensitive to increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming.
What are the scale-up effects?
Earth is not molecular-scale, and there are complex CO2 interactions between the oceans, the land, the biosphere and the atmosphere. Some of these important interactions are described in #1 to #7 above.
Warming tropical oceanic temperatures cause evaporation of seawater, tropical water vapour increases (and water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2), equatorial warming follows, that warming then extends to the rest of the planet, and atmospheric CO2 increases. Tropical sea surface temperatures increase, global temperatures increase, and atmospheric CO2 increases, in that order.
The huge “seasonal sawtooth” Keeling Curve of atmospheric CO2 is dominated by photosynthesis in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) Spring that draws down CO2, and oxidation in the Fall and Winter that releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. The Keeling Curve amplitude ranges from ~16 ppm at Barrow Alaska to ~1 ppm at the South Pole. The seasonal CO2 flux is much greater than the ~2 ppm average annual increase in CO2.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and the conventional view is that this CO2 increase is human-made, caused by fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. While this is scientifically important, it is not necessary to debate this point in order to disprove global warming alarmism.
Scientists including Salby, Berry and Harde have hypothesized that the increase in atmospheric CO2 to more than 400 ppm is largely natural and not mostly human-made. While my 2008 observations support this hypothesis, I have considered this question for ~11 years, and am still agnostic on the conclusion. Regardless of the cause, the increase in CO2 is strongly beneficial to humanity and the environment.
References:
The Keeling Curve, Scripps Institution of Oceanography https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
Address to the Sydney Institute, Murry Salby, 2011 http://youtu.be/YrI03ts–9I
“Human CO2 Has Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2”, Edwin Berry, 2019
“What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observation”, Hermann Harde, International Journal of Earth Sciences Vol. 8, No. 3, 2019
Recent evidence supports my above conclusions, as follows:
9. Even if ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is too low to cause dangerous global warming.
Christy and McNider (2017) analysed UAH Lower Troposphere data since 1979:
Reference: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
Lewis and Curry (2018) analysed HadCRUT4v5 Surface Temperature data since 1859:
Reference: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Climate computer models used by the IPCC and other global warming alarmists employ climate sensitivity values much higher than 1C/doubling, in order to create false fears of dangerous global warming.
10. I wrote in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald:
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
I will stand with this prediction – for moderate, natural cooling, similar to that which occurred from ~1940 to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, despite accelerating fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2. Similar cooling occurred from ~1945 to 1977 as fossil fuel consumption accelerated.
I now think global cooling will start closer to 2020. The following plot explains why (Fig.10).
I hope to be wrong, because humanity and the environment suffer during cold periods.
Fig.10 – Apparent Coherence of Total Solar Irradiance, Sea Surface Temperature and Lower Tropospheric Temperature, interrupted by the 1998 El Nino
![clip_image032[10]](https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/clip_image03210.jpg?resize=628%2C294&ssl=1 "clip_image032[10]")
11. An important fact pertaining to Energy Policy:
More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in England and Wales during the winter of 2017-18 – an Excess Winter Death rate about THREE TIMES the per-capita average in the USA and Canada.
Proportionally, that is about 35,000 more deaths in the UK than the average rates of the USA and Canada. British government climate and energy policies are effectively killing off the elderly and the poor.
Excessively high energy costs in the UK due to false global warming hysteria are a major component of the cause of these Excess Winter Deaths – global warming alarmists and corrupted governments and institutions are complicit in these premature deaths.
Reference: “Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather”
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
12. Fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in future decades.
The remaining 15% of global primary energy is almost all hydro and nuclear.
Eliminate fossil fuels tomorrow and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in about a month from starvation and exposure.
Despite trillions of dollars in squandered subsidies, global green energy has increased from above 1% to below 2% is recent decades.
Intermittent energy from wind and/or solar generation cannot supply the electric grid with reliable, uninterrupted power.
“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, because they require almost 100% conventional backup from fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro when the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine.
There is no widely-available, practical, cost-effective means of solving the fatal flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.
Hydro backup and pumped storage are only available in a few locations. Other grid-storage systems are very costly, although costs are decreasing.
To date, vital electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have increased greatly, and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to grid-connected green energy schemes.
Reference: “Statistical Review of World Energy”
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
Reference: “Wind Report 2005” – note Figs. 6 & 7 re intermittency.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
13. Radical greens have made many scary predictions, but every one of their predictions has failed to happen.
Radical greens have successfully subverted climate science as a means of stampeding the uneducated and the gullible to support their fundraising activities and their political objectives.
Reference: by Allan MacRae, August 26, 2015
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/un_ipcc_has_no_credibility1/
14. The scientific reality is that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause increased plant and crop yields, and possibly some minor, beneficial global warming.
There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather resulting from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Reference: “Greening of the Earth and its drivers”
by Zaichun Zhu et al, April 25, 2016
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
Reference: “Countering The Misinformation Of Al Gore’s Dirty Weather Report”
by Ian Clark, Bob Carter, Madhav Khandekar, Tim Ball, November 14, 2012
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=751
15. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. The real danger is not too much CO2 – it is CO2 starvation. Over geologic time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks.
Plants evolved at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm and greater, and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators pump 1000-1200 ppm CO2 into their greenhouses.
Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event.
During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm and that will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.
Reference: “(Plant) Food for Thought”
(first posted in January 2009 on wattsupwiththat.com, published on icecap.us in December 2014)
by Allan MacRae, Dec 18, 2014
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/plant_food_for_thought2/
Reference: “Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?”
by Patrick Moore, October 15, 2015
https://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/
16. Another important observation is the corruption of institutions. The green movement has been taken over by radicals, as described in 1994 by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.
That takeover by radical greens has now extended to universities, scientific associations, professional societies, media and governments.
Reference: “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, 1994 – note “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”.
http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/
Reference: “Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare”
by Tom Harris and Jay Lehr, May 24, 2019
17. Commentary concerning global warming and climate change catastrophes are typically political propaganda, not scientific reality.
The leaders of the radical greens typically know they are misleading the public. The Climategate emails provide irrefutable evidence of their misconduct. Their followers typically believe the falsehoods, and apparently do not have the education or the intellectual ability to do otherwise.
Reference: https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
Reference: https://www.thegwpf.com/climategate-a-scandal-that-wont-go-away/
Reference: http://www.theclimategatebook.com/about-the-book/table-of-contents/
18. We have known for decades that global warming alarmism was a false crisis, and that “green energy” schemes were not green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy.
In 2002 we were confident in the following points, sufficient to publish them and sign our names to them:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Reference: APEGA’s “Debate on the Kyoto Accord”, published in the PEGG November 2002, reprinted by other professional journals, The Globe and Mail and La Presse
by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae, November 2002
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
19. Science, governments, media and institutions have all been corrupted due to false global warming / climate change alarmism.
Enormously costly and destructive government policies have been adopted to “fight global warming / climate change”. Trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered, tens of millions of lives have been needlessly lost and delicate environments including tropical rainforests severely harmed due to environmental extremism.
Reference: “Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”
by Allan MacRae, April 14, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/14/hypothesis-radical-greens-are-the-great-killers-of-our-age/
20. Global warming / climate change mania will eventually cease, but this will probably take time – climate extremism has strong support.
Global warming / climate change alarmism is the most expensive and the most lucrative scientific error in history. There is ample evidence of fraud.
Epilogue
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Reference: “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, Charles Mackay, 1841.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Data Sources
University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) Lower Troposphere (LT) Temperatures
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Nino Area Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Data
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 data
Sato Aerosol Optical Depth Volcanic Index (to 2012)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt
NOAA Precipitable Water Monolevel +/-20 N, 0-360W
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks to Jan-Erik Solheim, Matt Briggs, Richard S Courtney, Joseph D’Aleo, Patrick Moore, William Happer, David Devenny, Bill Illis, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas and Tim Patterson.
Does this correlation back-test back into the C20?
Hi Peter – if i interpret your question correctly (?), the answer is yes.
I prefer to use UAH LT satellite temperature data, because of its accuracy ,but it is only available back to 1979.
In 2008 I reran the dCO2/dt vs temperature correlation back to 1958 using Hadcrut3 data, and the strong correlation holds. I have the spreadsheet but I did not publish it, as I recall. Quality CO2 data is only available back to 1958.
Here is a plot that may help.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1958/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1850/scale:0.25/offset:0.1/integral/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/scale:0.25/offset:0.1/trend
Allan et al, the correlation also holds nicely back to 1850. There is at most a 10 ppm difference between ice cores and co2 as calculated using temperature data. Ferdinand did this using bart’s numbers (which were not accurate) back to 1900 and got at most a 20 ppm difference. He also got the perfect match at the turn of the century. i left the data up to the right of the graph. Just remove the integral feature on the temperature series to see the data used and how it was accurately scaled. In 1850, ice cores tell us that co2 stood at 287 ppm. Add to that the 120+ ppm that you see in the graph and you get the approximate co2 level that we see today. (about 410 ppm)…
Peter Ould,
The correlation does hold for the “noise” around the trend, but gets worse for the trend itself if you go back in time:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1900_2011_B.jpg
The calculated increase from emissions is by adding the emissions and subtracting the calculated net sink rate which is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium with an e-fold decay of 51 years.
The calculated increase from temperature is what Bart/Fonz theory says: only integrating the temperature anomaly over time.
Before 1960 CO2 levels are from the Law Dome ice cores with a resolution of less than a decade and an accuracy of 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma).
Even over the past 100 years, the discrepancy gets larger over time and if you go further back over the LIA, there is no way to match the trends. Over glacial – interglacial periods with 100 ppmv change over 5000 years, it would give results completely in the stars…
The simple formula of solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature for the equilibrium and the 51 years e-fold decay rate for any excess CO2 above that equilibrium (whatever the source) does the job over the past 800,000 years, including the past 60 years…
A nice “take no prisoners” post.
Allan,
I like your quote and I can support it:
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
I will give you my prediction based upon fitting 107 cycles to the raw data.
One thing you may get from this picture is the warming from the early 1900s to 1945-1950 and then the brief cooling, and then warming. There it is in pictures the 67-year cycle broke up the longer period cycle. I think Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Curry have brought this up.
In fitting the raw data the correlation coefficient is 0.971. The ECS is just 0.22. I think Willis justified 0.35 just recently.
I could furnish more but here is how well the models are working. BTW, the NCA has to be a bad joke.
Allan, I may be wrong but I think we once communicated on another comment.
Well done, Allan M.R. MacRae!
For anyone interested in better understanding the physics behind: Why does the lag of atmospheric CO2 change[s] after temperature change[s] equal ~9 months? In a perfect sine wave, the integral lags its derivative by pi/2, or 1/4 cycle.
Here is an excellent lecture by Dr. Murry Salby (Hamburg, 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
(English begins at about 45 seconds)
For all you non-tech majors (like I), do persevere in watching this. Dr. Salby is not only a brilliant atmospheric physicist, he is a fine teacher. I understood it (with several “pause”-repeats, heh) — so can you! 🙂
:D….insert wavy hand here!
(hours later….. *sigh* — btw: I saw your “Hi” above at 5:40pm)
(((WAVING HAND))) back at you! 🙂 Hope all is well, Latitude, Dude.
Excellent, it has made things much clearer for me.
Glad to hear that, Andy. Thanks for taking the time to say so.
The disconnect between human emission of CO2 and increasing atmospheric CO2 is shown conclusively in Salby’s recent lecture in Hamburg. He shows that, over preceding decades, human emission of CO2 increased steadily – by more than 50%. But increasing atmospheric CO2 doesn’t follow from emission. It follows from *net* emission, which accounts for removal of CO2 through absorption. Salby shows that, over the same decades when human emission steadily increased by more than 50%, net emission (human + natural) evidenced no systematic change.
https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548
Accordingly, human emission can’t be a major component of net emission of CO2. Human emission therefore can’t be responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2. The increase of atmospheric CO2 can only follow from changes of natural emission. That’s what the IPCC has conveniently ignored, as underscored by Harde and Berry.
Thank you, Philip, for sharing that! Alas, WUWT has become such a lukewarm swamp (I had to push hard in 2016 just to get WUWT to feature Dr. Pat Frank’s powerful refutation of AGW, “Systematic Error in Climate Measurements: the Surface Air Temperature Record” (here on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvAv ) — those with money interests in promoting a “just in case” approach to CO2, e.g., the commenter, R.I., who dabbles in “carbon storage” (batteries, I guess) snarled especially loudly)
that it is unlikely Dr. Salby’s October, 2018 lecture will be featured, here. Here it is, 8 months out and no sign of it — did I miss it?
Anyway.
Just FYI for anyone else interested in TRUTH in science, to encourage you to
WATCH THE ABOVE VIDEO (Salby, Hamburg, 2018),
here are some key excerpts:
Excellent introduction, then, Dr. Salby begins at ~ 8:54
31:11 “Total [natural and human] net [CO2] emission … underwent … little if any systematic* change.”
31:28 “The observed evolution [of net CO2 emission] tracks surface conditions, mostly temperature which regulates natural emission and absorption.”
32:06 “Anthropogenic [CO2] emission … is independent of temperature.”
32:16 “The observed record shows that total net [CO2] emission is function of only temperature.”
Thus, we know that,
32:36 “Net anthropogenic emission was much smaller than net natural emission.”
Further,
33:11 “… the Conservation Law … reveals a strong cancellation [of] anthropogenic emission … and reduces to a form [showing that net CO2 is] largely independent of anthropogenic emission.
CO2 is, thus, controlled by net natural emission.”
*See Salby lecture at ~ 17:51 – 23:22 for explanation with equations of the technical term,“systematic” trend versus random change (i.e., a systematic trend cannot be significantly altered by removing minor perturbations. He removes those two ~4-year perturbations and finds that they DO alter the “trend.” Thus, there is no systematic upward temperature trend.)
Do you know of anywhere to go to find estimates of the total amount of atmospheric CO2, compared with estimates of mankind’s “carbon footprint?”
Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2014
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems
Thank you!
Philip,
I was in London a few years ago, where Dr. Salby did give a similar lecture in the buildings of the Parliament. Unfortunately, there was no time for an in-depth discussion…
Dr. Salby goes wrong is on several items, but the main problem is that he is comparing noise with noise and then concludes that the trend has the same cause as the noise.
In fact you have a mix of two variables which influence the fate of CO2 in the atmosphere:
– human emissions: one-way, slightly quadratic going up year by year with little variability.
– temperature: highly variable, with a small overall trend, with decades of ups and downs.
If you look at the growth of CO2 over time, there is a linear trend in growth at about half the human CO2 emissions and about all the year-by-year variability of temperature.
Indeed, near all the variability is caused by temperature variability, but that doesn’t say anything about the cause of the trend, which is pretty sure from the double input of human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
The huge temperature variability only translates to +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90+ ppmv trend for the temperature extremes (Pinatubo, El Niño), but it is quite obvious that human emissions drive the CO2 increase in the atmosphere…
Two thumbs up!
Does anyone actually think that this makes any sense?
absolutely….no matter how high CO2 levels got….the planet crashed back into an ice age
At thousands ppm…no run away nothing…CO2 can’t drive squat
But…But..thet CO2 wasn’t anthropogenic in sourcing. It’s only human produced CO2 that is bad. Nature knows the difference. 😉
and we ‘crash back’ into re-glaciating when CO2 is at its highest level.
Yes
It makes good sense to this engineer!
What’s your problem Fancois?
Looks like Frank, along with most of his co-religionists, can’t handle a little math.
Personally I would have thought that it was obviously nonsense. The Nino34 index essentially
oscillates about zero while both CO2 and global temperatures are rising relatively steadily especially
if you take long term averages. And so any correlations are likely coincidence.
Plus there is the fact that his supposed prediction of temperature from the Nino34 index has the
wrong slope. Fig. 5a and fig. 5b have the actual temperatures increasing while slope of his predicted
temperature is negative. Which suggests that his theory is wrong.
Isaac wrote:
“Which suggests that his theory is wrong.”
No – it suggests you did not read the paper.
See Section 6:
“Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2.”
You are conflating my position with that of others like Salby, Berry and Harde – Sect.8.
Allan,
You make the claim that temperatures obey the equation:
UAHLT = 0.20*Nino34SSTAnomaly + 0.15
And when you plot this is Fig 5a this prediction according to you have a least
squares fit of
y=-0.003*x +6.11
while the actual temperatures given in Fig 5.a has a least squares fit of
y=0.0125*x-24.933
according to your figure. Which means that according to your equation
temperatures are decreasing by 0.003 degrees per year while according to you
temperatures are actually increasing by 0.0125 degrees per year. Hence if you
can’t even get the sign of the temperature change right your theory fails at the first
hurdle.
Also if as you state “ther factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also
cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2.” then ocean temperatures are not the major
cause of CO2 increases.
Isaak
In the same Section 5 that your quoted, you missed these important statements:
“Note the suppression of air temperatures during and after the 1982-83 El Nino, due to two century-scale volcanoes El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo.
Much of the atmospheric warming from ~1982-1996 (blue trend) was a recovery from the two major volcanoes – Nino34 SST’s (purple trend) cooled slightly.”
Good people, if you want to comment, please read the entire paper and try to understand it – and if you have questions, also look at the spreadsheet. It is apparent that most of the negative comments here result from failing to do either.
Allan,
A comprehensive and impressive post.
One issue that continues to nag me is the claim by Nick Stokes ( WUWT passim) that for aeons past the greenhouse gas balance of the Earth has been in equilibrium and that since 1950 humankind’s mining and burning of fossil fuels has introduced a new element . The claimed result is that CO2 is building dangerously in the atmosphere, with a long residence of 100+ years.Water vapour is said to have a residence time of 10 days.
I hope I am not doing him a disservice in this summary.
I appreciate the dispute over the 100+ years and résidence time with a number of scientists claiming that the residence time for CO2 is much shorter.
For example Freeman Dyson is on record stating the residence time is some 12 years.( Dreams of Earth and Sky,Ch. 6, “ The question of global warming”).
What puzzles me is why a burst of fossil fuel usage since 1950 should introduce a “ new element” into the issue, with CO2 suddenly being dangerously in excess of past experience in terms of accumulation .
Am I correct in thinking that, as Richard Lindzen maintains, the carbon cycle has never been in ‘balance’ but iterates towards that state?
Tim Ball has claimed that when one looks at the IPCC 2005 estimates of CO2 emissions the range of estimates of natural and human carbon production ( as CO2) displays a large uncertainty factor and the estimated human contribution lies well within the uncertainty range of the three natural sources,respiration, Ocean outgassing and soil bacteria.
The total uncertainty at some 15% of the combined list is said to be 5 times the human production.
Any thoughts?
yep…I have one…and it hurt
Fossil fuel consumption has increased exponentially …emissions by country…especially China, India, SE Asia, etc…has increased exponentially
….yet, CO2 measured in the atmosphere has continued to increase linearly
…that is not possible
Unless the difference is going somewhere. like plants ?
Good point Lat, that should be especially apparent during the past decade if the human contributed CO2 is a civilization-endangering daemon it’s touted to be.
In math, a dependency on a variable is rarely a linear dependency. X=f(x) where f(x) =log(x) is a simple example. In atmospheric terms this is true between the relationship between dewpoint and absolute humidity.
“For example Freeman Dyson is on record stating the residence time is some 12 years.”
A fuller quote is here:
“Lord May and I have several differences of opinion which remain friendly. But one of our disagreements is a matter of arithmetic and not a matter of opinion. He says that the residence time of a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about a century, and I say it is about twelve years.
This discrepancy is easy to resolve. We are talking about different meanings of residence time. I am talking about residence without replacement. My residence time is the time that an average carbon dioxide molecule stays in the atmosphere before being absorbed by a plant. He is talking about residence with replacement. His residence time is the average time that a carbon dioxide molecule and its replacements stay in the atmosphere when, as usually happens, a molecule that is absorbed is replaced by another molecule emitted from another plant.”
I think his logic here is contorted, but the facts are right. As it stands, the path is two-way, and the residence time is about a century. If there were some hypothetical plants that could absorb CO2 without replacement, it would be twelve years. But there aren’t.
But the CO2 released by the plant isn’t anthropogenic in Origin and as such is a Good and Beneficial CO2 whereas the CO2 released by human actions or for human benefit is Bad CO2
Nick,
Thanks for your response.
One further question on residence time.
Steve Goreham’s book on Climatism contains the following passage, addressing the claim of the IPCC that carbon dioxide is ‘ accumulating in the atmosphere’ and that CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time,
“ …Second, prior to the advent of IPCC dogma, some 30 peer reviewed scientific papers estimated CO2 atmospheric lifetimes to be an average of about five to six years.”
Source:Tom Segelstad, “Carbon Cycle Modelling and the Residence Time of Natural and Anthropogenic Atmospheric CO2: On The Construction of the ‘Greenhouse Effect Global Warming Dogma”, http://www.geocraft.com/WV-Fossils/Référence_Docs/Carbon_cycle_update_Segastad.pdf
Segalstad has been publishing papers to this effect since 1998.
Your views.
Again, as Dyson says, they are talking about two different things. Yes, there is a well characterised half-life of individual CO2 molecules in the air of about five years. There are exchange processes that ensure that. But it is not the time that matters. That time is the time it takes for a pulse of CO2 to disappear from the atmosphere. And that is much longer.
On average, the atoms in our body stay there about six weeks. That is not to be confused with life expectancy.
Nick,
Thanks again to you for taking the time to address my queries.
Thanks also to Allan for his response.
I think that Dyson is optimistic enough to assume that CO2 is helpful in promoting plant growth, with the resulting growth being essentially a permanent gain on any time scale meaningful for decision making. See for instance,
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/world-added-an-amazon-s-worth-of-greenery-in-2-decades-nasa-1.4321918
I am agnostic on this issue, as per S.8 of my paper, but Hermann Harde’s paper is now available online at http://article.esjournal.org/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20190803.13.pdf
Some very intelligent people believe Harde is correct. His conclusion:
6. Conclusion
The increase of CO2 over recent years can well be explained
by a single balance equation, the Conservation Law (23),
which considers the total atmospheric CO2 cycle, consisting of
temperature and thus time dependent natural emissions, the
human activities and a temperature dependent uptake process,
which scales proportional with the actual concentration. This
uptake is characterized by a single time scale, the residence
time of about 3 yr, which over the Industrial Era slightly
increases with temperature. Only this concept is in complete
conformity with all observations and natural causalities. It
confirms previous investigations (Salby [7, 10]; Harde [6])
and shows the key deficits of some widespread but largely ad
hoc carbon cycle models used to describe atmospheric CO2,
failures which are responsible for the fatal conclusion that the
increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 270 years is
principally anthropogenic.
For a conservative assessment we find from Figure 8 that
the anthropogenic contribution to the observed CO2 increase
over the Industrial Era is significantly less than the natural
influence. At equilibrium this contribution is given by the
fraction of human to native impacts. As an average over the
period 2007-2016 the anthropogenic emissions (FFE&LUC
together) donated not more than 4.3% to the total
concentration of 393 ppm, and their fraction to the
atmospheric increase since 1750 of 113 ppm is not more than
17 ppm or 15%. With other evaluations of absorption, the
contribution from anthropogenic emission is even smaller.
Thus, not really anthropogenic emissions but mainly natural
processes, in particular the temperature, have to be considered
as the dominating impacts for the observed CO2 increase over
the last 270 yr and also over paleoclimate periods.
You qualitatively assert the existence of a three year period in your data. However, a stronger argument would be to show its existence quantitatively using a simple Fourier analysis. It would also be nice to report the correlation coefficients in your other figures/datasets.
Paul – see Sect. 7 in the Excel spreadsheet for stats analysis. It is there.
“Some very intelligent people believe Harde is correct. ” Not sure of whom you speak.
Some other very intelligent people assert that Harde is incorrect.
Abstract
Harde (2017) proposes an alternative accounting scheme for the modern carbon cycle and concludes that only 4.3% of today’s atmospheric CO2 is a result of anthropogenic emissions. As we will show, this alternative scheme is too simple, is based on invalid assumptions, and does not address many of the key processes involved in the global carbon cycle that are important on the timescale of interest. Harde (2017) therefore reaches an incorrect conclusion about the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Harde (2017) tries to explain changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration with a single equation, while the most simple model of the carbon cycle must at minimum contain equations of at least two reservoirs (the atmosphere and the surface ocean), which are solved simultaneously. A single equation is fundamentally at odds with basic theory and observations. In the following we will (i) clarify the difference between CO2 atmospheric residence time and adjustment time, (ii) present recently published information about anthropogenic carbon, (iii) present details about the processes that are missing in Harde (2017), (iv) briefly discuss shortcoming in Harde’s generalization to paleo timescales, (v) and comment on deficiencies in some of the literature cited in Harde (2017).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301364?via%3Dihub
Allan,
I have written an extensive reaction on Hermann Harde’s work:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf
He is wrong on three important items:
1. Using the residence time, or even the decay rate of the 14C bomb tests excess, doesn’t say anything about the time needed to reduce an extra bulk CO2 injection – whatever the source – above the temperature controlled steady state of the oceans with the atmosphere.
2. Using the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as base implies a steady state of zero CO2 in the atmosphere, which is not realistic.
3. Using only natural emissions without taking into account the natural sinks violates the mass balance.
The strange point is 1. where he clearly knows the difference between residence time and relaxation time, but nevertheless uses the residence time in his final formula…
Hi Ferdinand, I can also attest that:
“Some very intelligent people believe Harde is INcorrect.”
Repeating ad infinitum, I am officially agnostic – I just don’t want to spend time on this point – it is scientifically important, but not critical to my hypo. It is a distraction.
The strong conclusion is that increasing atm. CO2, from whatever source, will NOT cause dangerous global warming or wilder weather, and is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Best, Allan
We want to transform the CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money. https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo
I want to be able to fly by thought control.
R Sherer
I thought that when the autopilot is turned off, that is how it is done. 🙂
We don’t need no education
We don’t need not thought control
Sid Amba Grudem and Asmus find: “If a country wants to move up the scale from “low-income” to “middle-income” to “high-income” .. .It must increase the total amount of goods and services that it produces, which means that there will be more to go around.” To develop “good paying full time jobs and money from CO2”, we must make fuel from sustainable energy CO2 and H2O cheaper than fossil fuels. See “The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution” https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Poverty_of_Nations.html?id=if0Oe0_7xGUC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false
Fission nuclear power is a sustainable energy source which can last for millions of years.
How are you going to create good paying jobs via a process that needs government subsidies in order to break even?
They get all the unemployed down to the nearest beach to work on similar subsidised jobs and split them into 2 shifts – a morning shift and an afternoon shift! The morning shift digs a massive hole, and the afternoon shift fills it in day after day – etc. etc. etc. Taxes and other overhead costs escalate but have to be paid, but “So what?” such things are possible in La La land.
yep and give them spoons to do the digging
Sid’s still trolling for investors.
What creates the increase in ocean temperature that starts this process? Is it direct sunlight modulated by cloud cover? If so are there reliable measurements of cloud cover to explain ocean warming and cooling?
Probably yes Casey – I recall Willis E has done some interesting work on this.
Thank you Allan. And thanks for the article.
Well, the plot didn’t explain it to me and I fail to see the apparent coherence between TSI and temp.
And why is 2020 special in that plot?
I expect a two-year Niña starting in 2020 that should reduce surface temperature because ENSO responds to solar activity so I kind of agree with the prediction, but I don’t see how you arrive to it.
Hi Javier,
I restricted the article to 12 pages of 8.5×14″, so S.10 on global cooling is quite short. Another full paper would be required to deal with all the evidence of imminent cooling, and that evidence is not entirely conclusive – I could be wrong, and I hope I am. I would cite the work of Nir Shaviv, Willie Soon, Dan Pangburn and others.
As I see it, there are two primary drivers of global temperature at the century-millennial scale:
1. Solar intensity and cycles
and
2 Pacific Ocean cycles.
It seems to me that solar intensity in the dominant factor, but that dominance is occasionally over-ridden by a major ENSO cycle, and further impacted by major longer-term shifts in the Pacific from cold-mode to warm-mode, as happened in 1977.
Best, Allan
What could really put a dent in the whole CO2 climate argument is that if we have a substantial 10-20 year cooling event, and CO2 levels globally stabilize or actually fall off. Since we know fairly accurately how much CO2 mankind is producing, a cooling event should tell us how much CO2 is
re-absorbed in the natural sinks. The difference should tell us the flow rate of CO2 through the atmosphere and oceans in a natural secular cooling.
Earthling wrote:
“What could really put a dent in the whole CO2 climate argument is that if we have a substantial 10-20 year cooling event…”
Global cooling already happened, from ~1945 to 1977, even as atm. CO2 reportedly increased.
We only have good-quality CO2 data from Mauna Loa since 1958, but there is ample evidence from this cooling period to demonstrate that climate sensitivity to increasing atm. CO2 is very low – less than 1C/doubling and probably much less.
There is a wonderful CBC radio show called ‘Under the Influence’ which is about advertising. The latest episode is about advertisements that got banned. Among the stories is the British grocery chain, Iceland, which used advertising content developed by Greenpeace. The British advertising watchdog banned the ad because it was developed by Greenpeace and Greenpeace is considered to be a political organization.
I also noted stories that Greenpeace is/was campaigning against Brexit. According to Pournelle’s Iron Law, any group will eventually be snatched from those who started it and who were working for its stated purpose. It will be taken over by bureaucrats who will run it for their own benefit. So, it’s no surprise that Greenpeace got taken over … but it’s sad anyway.
“Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved…”
By inserting the subjective “alarmism” and “catastrophic” you’ve made this about your opinion and not evidence. Are you going to define exactly what they mean to you? If you remove them you’re left with:
“Global warming, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes global warming, is disproved…”
doesn’t make sense.
He makes perfect sense Mr Loydo.
It is the alarmism and assumption of catastrophe that are proved false.
To say that some people are alarmed by global warming is an objective statement not an opinion.
How about responding to the science rather than erroneously deconstructing the language.
If people were not worried that anthropogenic carbon dioxide would cause enough warming to have catastrophic results, this blog would not exist and governments around the world would not have spent billions of dollars promoting renewable energy.
The use of the word ‘catastrophic’ describes the whole message of the IPCC.
As for ‘alarmism’, there’s more than ample evidence justify its use.
What you’re saying is akin to insisting that the law of gravity is just my opinion.
Who amongst the leading lights of the AGW movement criticized AOC when she claimed that there was only 12 years left to save the planet?
Exactly. Loydo practices sophistry, however collectivist mind tricks only work on the weak minded
As you well know oh troll, is that nobody denies that CO2 will cause a small amount of warming.
Without the alarmist claims of catastrophic warming, nobody would care.
MacRae says “The velocity of changes of atmospheric CO2 [dCO2/dt] varies ~contemporaneously with changes in global temperature (Fig.1a).”
…
This statement is utterly FALSE.
..
The y-axis is the graphic is a temperature anomaly not a change in global temperature.
..
Global temperatures can be rising when the anomaly is negative. Global temperatures rise in July and fall in Feb:
Exactly. Loydo practices sophistry, however collectivist mind tricks only work on the weak minded
Christopher – anger management issues?
No anger MacRae, but seems you have no response to my observation. Does that make me correct?
No Christopher – it just makes you angry, and I do not respond to anger.
I may write another paper in 4-5 years – you can try again then.
Your observation of “anger” is incorrect. You mistake someone that points out your gross error as “anger.” Can you explain why you claim the y-axis of your Fig 1a is a “change” in global temperature when in fact it is an anomaly ?
Allan, can you please provide me a link to a peer-reviewed “paper” that you have had published? Not something that was published on a blog like here or “icecap.us”???
Christopher
“Global temperatures rise in July and fall in Feb:”
Have you ever looked at the CO2 concentrations recorded at Mauna Loa?
Allan Thanks for insightful explorations. Recommend also citing:
McKitrick & Christy 2018 Test of the Tropical 200‐to 300‐hPa Warming Rate
Varotsos & Efstathiou 2019 Has global warming already arrived?
http://bit.ly/2CQBAT8 https://bit.ly/2wFXtRN
David R.B. Stockwell modeled the Pi/2 temperature lag from solar cycles. e.g.,
David R.B. Stockwell, Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar influence on1global temperature
August 23, 2011 http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1108.0032v1.pdf
Stockwell David R.B., 2011 On the Dynamics of Global Temperature, August 2011a. URL. 2011;186:55.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.4553&rep=rep1&type=pdf
It seems then, that it is possible to predict what the CO2 increase will be 9 months ahead of time. This may be elementary, but it sure would be a great demonstration. I recommend taking the past 9months temperature record (UAH, HadCrut? etc.) and drawing a forecast dCO2/dt for the next 9 months and giving some commentary here say each couple of months. Watching it play out would be a devastating experience for the CO2ophobes and giving it good publicity would pretty well seal the the deal for sanity going forward. Create an App for free and distribute broadly for cell phones. It could have a little notification bell to attract the phone owner to read the message each month. Maybe make a contest and have people participate for a coffee mug or tee shirt.
Hi Gary – about 2008 Ferdinand and I did monthly CO2 predictions for a while online, probably on wattsup. We had to allow for the seasonal Keeling Curve, and as I recall we did pretty well.
Good read, content-wise Alan.
Criticism are presentation related the over-use of bold, italics and underlining degrades readability fast, try using as little format ornamentation as possible. And rather than having an everything plus the kitchen sink post, it would be far better to separate it into two more focused posts.
2c
WX – this paper is my “swan song” – so it does contain a lot of content, some very briefly discussed.
I think the science is becoming more clear, and there is a lot of work to be done by others to follow this “new” paradigm – which is now 11 years old – since MacRae2008.
One of the major questions is “how much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is natural, and how much is human-made”? A number of very intelligent people believe that Hermann Harde (2019) is correct – that it is mostly natural – I am still agnostic (withholding judgment) on this question.
Whilst this and other articles plus the comments are very interesting,
I consider that its a case if just “Preaching to the converted”..
So what do we do about the large number of people who have been taken in
by the Green Propaganda, and thus are of the opinion that CC is indeed
real, which of course it is, but that its a major problem, and something that
has to be addressed.
So of course the Politicians respond and we are therm faced with a very
expensive fix over a none existence problem.
So lacking the generous support of a billionaire sceptic, and faced with a
hostile Media, how do we get our message through to that group of people ?
MJE VK5ELL.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
– Charles Mackay
Articles like these are very useful, at least to myself, in providing the arguments to get people afflicted by this CAGW madness to break the spell.
I recently had an “animated discussion” over lunch with four French Aerospace Engineering interns at work. All were aghast that I wasn’t on board with the “consensus”, but none of them seemed to have ever though about the details and they made some very strange arguments to support their view, including that increasing CO2 levels were bad for your health.
Hopefully, they will think about what we discussed and over time begin to question what they were taught. A life time of indoctrination does not dissolve overnight, but there is still hope.
“I recently had an “animated discussion” over lunch with four French Aerospace Engineering interns at work. All were aghast that I wasn’t on board with the “consensus”, but none of them seemed to have ever thought about the details…”
Hi Mark – what airplanes are these guys designing – the 737 Max, perchance?
Please advise, so we can find OTHER airplanes to fly on.
Hi Allan,
Excellent work!
The only thing I would add is to point out the increase in global average water vapor. The rate substantially increased in about 1960 and then substantially leveled off in 2002-2005. It has been measured by satellite and reported monthly by NASA/RSS since Jan 1988. Until 2002-2005 the WV increase has been about twice that calculated from average global temperature increase. My analysis is predicting that the higher WV will prevent the cooling otherwise expected due to quiet sun and declining average ocean cycle. But the WV level is self-limiting so the planet will stop warming and might have stopped already.
As to the lack of influence of CO2 on temperature, apparently the increased emission at high altitude (above 15 km where CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecules by about 13 to 1) effectively counters the slightly increased absorption near the surface where on average WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by about 24 to 1.
Hi Dan and thank you for your comments.
Hope you are correct about “no cooling” – I can live with that.
Trust you and your family are doing well. Times are bad here in Alberta, because the brain trust in Ottawa believes we can live without fossil fuels, and is doing everything to sabotage our economy and our energy systems.
As you may know, Alberta carries the entire country economically/financially, and we are being destroyed by green zealots. We are not Canada anymore, we are Canazuela.
Best personal regards, Allan
The other way to see the current warming trend is as part of the violent swings between warming and cooling seen in the history of the Holocene that precedes it.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/11/chaoticholocene/
Allan –
You are using El Mini temps from a narrow latitude band, average global temperatures, and CO2 readings from Mauna Loa in the Pacific.
They slight delay in global temps is atmospheric transport delay.
Your three month CO2 delay is an atmospheric mixing and circulation delay, caused by an atmospheric pump action.
Regards
Martin
Apologies for poor spelling, cell ph and old glasses don’t mix.
Regards
Martin wrote:
“You are using El Mini temps from a narrow latitude band, average global temperatures, and CO2 readings from Mauna Loa in the Pacific. Your three month CO2 delay is an atmospheric mixing and circulation delay.”
Your comments are rather misleading, Martin.
In MacRae2008 I used global average CO2 and got similar results.
Read Section 6. The lag of atmospheric CO2 after Nino 34 temperatures is not 3 months, it is 9-12 months.
6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
Fig.6a – Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity (offset) increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms…
Fig.6b …and UAH LT Tropics Atmospheric Temperature leads UAH LT Global Atmospheric Temperature, which leads changes in Atmospheric CO2.
There are certainly delays in the described mechanism – that’s what it’s all about.
Please good people, read the paper and look at the data in the Excel spreadsheet before you “shoot from the hip”.
Thanks for your reply
This is all very interesting. One question though: if CO2 follows temperature, can a corresponding reduction in atmospheric CO2 contents during the period 1940-80 be observed?
As stated in the article, CO2 behaves as an integral of the past temperatures. For the CO2 concentrations to decrease, the CO2 concentration derivative must be negative.
[CO2 (t)] = [CO2(t0)] + integral from time t0 to t of F(T, t)
where :
[CO2(t)] is the CO2 concentration at time t,
F(T,t) is a function of the temperature T and the time t (a quasi-linear function with respect to T anomalies seems to matches pretty well for the last 40 years of UAH global temperatures anomalies measurements).
t0 is an arbitrary initial time (for example the begining of the Mauna Loa [CO2] measurements).
For the [CO2(t)] to be smaller than [CO2(t0)], the integral from time t0 to t of F(T, t) must be negative and thus F(T,t) must be negative for a sufficient lasp of time between t0 and t, otherwise, [CO2(t)] will continue to increase even if the global T are decreasing (at least, untill a certain time laps is reached).
Isaac wrote:
“Which suggests that his theory is wrong.”
No – it suggests you did not read the paper.
See Section 6:
“Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2.”
You are conflating my position with that of others like Salby, Berry and Harde – Sect.8.
S. Anderson – a very good question, and one reason why I am agnostic on a related question.
Moderate global cooling occurred from ~1945 to 1977, when the Great Pacific Climate Shift occurred.
Mauna Loa atm. CO2 data exists starting in 1958, and during the time 1958-1977 atm. CO2 did not decline, but it only increased about 20ppm, from ~315 to ~335ppm (~1.0ppm/year) – the CO2 data is in the 3rd page of the Excel file.
From 1977 to 2019 atm. CO2 increased from ~335 ppm to ~410 ppm (~1.8ppm/year), much greater than the rate during the previous cooling period.
There are a few occasions during the cooling period when the 12-month CO2 delta declined – see the red negative numbers in column M of the CO2 data – but these are rare. This led me to write in Sect. 6:
“Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2.”
The causes of the increase in atm. CO2 do not have to be all natural or all human-made – it is most likely a combination of both factors, and trying to estimate the magnitudes is a great task – for others – see Harde 2019.
🙂
Thanks for your reply. Have I understood it correctly then that if no additional, man-made CO2 had been added to the atmosphere, a reduction in atmospheric levels would have been observed? The anthropogenic CO2 “masks” that reduction but does not contribute to climate change. Very interesting thoughts indeed.
S Anderson:
A minor change in your sentence – I think this would be “more or less” correct – it’s complicated:
“… if no additional, man-made CO2 had been added to the atmosphere, AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES COOLED, a reduction in atmospheric levels would have been observed. The anthropogenic CO2 “masks” that reduction but does not contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to climate change.”
Further comment for S. Anderson:
“… if no additional, man-made CO2 had been added to the atmosphere, AND SUFFICIENT TIME PASSED, a reduction in atmospheric levels would have been observed. The anthropogenic CO2 “masks” that reduction but does not contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to climate change.”
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Thanks again for your kind replies and your efforts in this. I am humbled by the amount of work that has gone into your analyses.
The 1940-1970’s cooling is associated with increased industrial aerosols from war and post war boom. The Clean Air Acts of 1970’s which were enacted to eliminate smog reduced the industrial aerosols and warming resumed.
BTW – using carbon isotope analysis, the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the Industrial revolution can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.
““Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2.”” There is no may, they did.
Jack – for the record, I disagree with you.
I don’t have the time to go into all the evidence – but there is more than sufficient data to disprove your first paragraph. See the Sato data in the Excel spreadsheet.
Your second paragraph is a matter of debate. See Harde 2019, referenced herein. I am agnostic on this point – that is why I wrote the subject sentence the way I did.
Have you read
Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low-level clouds
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6427/eaav0566
Structured Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Human-made emissions of particulate air pollution can offset part of the warming induced by emissions of greenhouse gases, by enhancing low-level clouds that reflect more solar radiation back to space. The aerosol particles have this effect because cloud droplets must condense on preexisting tiny particles in the same way as dew forms on cold objects; more aerosol particles from human-made emissions lead to larger numbers of smaller cloud droplets. One major pathway for low-level cloud enhancement is through the suppression of rain by reducing cloud droplet sizes. This leaves more water in the cloud for a longer time, thus increasing the cloud cover and water content and thereby reflecting more solar heat to space. This effect is strongest over the oceans, where moisture for sustaining low-level clouds over vast areas is abundant. Predicting global warming requires a quantitative understanding of how cloud cover and water content are affected by human-made aerosols.
Your Sato data is for for stratospheric aerosols, which are associated with volcanic eruptions, not industrial aerosols, which reside in the troposphere.
FYI Jack.
Aerosol data was fabricated “from thin air” to force the climate models to hindcast the cooling period from ~1945-1977.
This was model-cooking – one thing that the IPCC and its modeling minions were good at.
Here is a note from 2006 from Douglas Hoyt on the subject.
https://climateaudit.org/2006/07/19/whitfield-subcommittee-witnesses-to-be-questioned/
Douglas Hoyt
Posted Jul 22, 2006 at 5:37 AM | Permalink
Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in: Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occuring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and in other in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
So when McRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.
“Sulfur trapped in the Greenland Ice Sheet records the presence of reflective sulfate aerosols downwind of the United States and Canada. Emissions of the pollutants that form sulfate aerosols rose sharply in the United States and Europe during and after World War II. This rise may be responsible for the Northern Hemisphere cooling from 1940–1970. By the 1980s, oil embargos and environmental controls had reduced sulfate pollution in North America, but carbon dioxide continued to build up in the atmosphere. ”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php
Jack Dale,
I agree with Allan on this topic: while some human induced aerosols have a cooling effect (SO2), others have a warming effect (brown/black soot), so even the sign of the aerosol effect is unsure. What is sure is that the modellers used cooling aerosols to explain the 1945-1975 slight cooling with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
The problem is that there was a tremendous reduction in SO2 emissions in the western world, (but a tremendous increase in S.E. Asia), that had no measurable effect on the areas with the highest influence of the SO2 reduction, as implied by climate models: near the Finnish – Russian border for the West European industry. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/aerosols.html
That one can (ab)use aerosols to fit the past is one of the (too) many control knobs in climate models which can be used to fit the past, but that doesn’t imply that the future will follow the same path. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
1. How come the Arctic cooled far faster than any other region?
2. Aerosols are short-lived in the atmosphere . They are not well mixed in the atmosphere. The climate effect of Aerosols, therefore, is “regionally specific”. There is no obvious cooling signal in the industrial mid-latitude regions.
I predict ‘no cooling’ as the keepers of temperature records will ensure that these records continue to move towards the computer model outputs. UAH will probably be the sole exception. Not enough is being done to verify that the global warming ‘observed’ is possibly caused by higher Tmin due to the urban heat island effect and homogenization (reducing past temperatures). All the arguments about the human emissions of CO2 effect are in vain until we have a reliable temperature record with proper uncertainty ranges.
Hi John,
I use UAH LT temperatures ~exclusively after 1979 – kudos to John Christy and Roy Spencer – great guys.
Thank you. If I hadn’t already resigned from APEGA, I would now, because they caved to the green blob.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for reminding me – I resigned from APEGA this morning.
Best, Allan
_______________________________________
From: Allan MacRae
Sent: June-16-19 4:42 AM
To: APEGA Membership
Subject: I have chosen to resign my professional membership in APEGA
To: APEGA Membership Team.
I have chosen to resign my professional membership in the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), Member Number 24355, after more than four decades.
I am resigning from APEGA because, in my opinion, it is no longer professional or credible. I suggest that APEGA Management and Council have become corrupted by extremist elements, such that APEGA is no longer worthy of its status as a self-governing professional organization.
Specifically, APEGA Executive and Council have taken sides in the fractious debate in favour of global warming and climate change extremism, when they should, at a minimum, have remained carefully neutral.
I wrote to APEGA President George Eynon, P.Geo., on 14June2019 to try to resolve this matter, but APEGA has formally declined to respond. Accordingly, I will no longer be associated with APEGA.
Yours truly, Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng.
Calgary
Sadly, this post does not tell anything new or proves anything. It has been well known for all climate scientists for decades that CO2 lags temperatures in the historical records.
This means that temperature increase causes higher CO2 level. The logical fault in this post is that it takes this fact as proof that CO2 cannot be a cause of temperature rise.
In fact, both are true. Rise in atmospheric level of CO2 causes temperature rise; and rise in temperatures causes rise in atmospheric CO2 content. This is called positive feedback.
Rise in atmospheric water vapor with temperatures is another source of positive feedback
Without positive feedback a doubling of CO2 level would cause about 1-degree Celsius rise in the average global temperature. With the feedback the temperature is estimated to rise between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.
/Jan
Jan wrote:
“Sadly, this post does not tell anything new or proves anything. It has been well known for all climate scientists for decades that CO2 lags temperatures in the historical records.”
False and misleading – the observations in Sections 1a and 1b, Figures 1a and 1b were new in Jan2008.
The ~~800-year lag of CO2 lag after temperature was known from the ice core record – a much longer time scale..
“Without positive feedback a doubling of CO2 level would cause about 1-degree Celsius rise in the average global temperature. With the feedback the temperature is estimated to rise between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.”
This is the IPCC mantra – it is false. There is NO credible evidence that climate sensitivity is as high as 4.5C – NONE – and ample evidence it is ~1C and less – see my Section 11 – for example, Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018).
CO2 rise that follow temperature rise is known bout from ice core records, and from newer data as well. It is also well-known from Henry’s law.
The data from 2008 only confirm well known facts.
Concerning the strength of feedback, there have been produced tons of reports on this issue, and some of them claim as much as 6-degree Celsius sensibility, but most confirm a level between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
To blatantly claim that there is no evidence at all for sensitivity as high as 4.5 C, is to dismiss many scientific reports from reputed scientists. Why should we take your word for that?
/Jan
Jan wrote:
“Why should we take your word for that?”
Now you are being disingenuous – I quoted above:
“Section 11 – for example, Christy & McNider (2017) and Lewis & Curry (2018)”
Note that both these climate sensitivity estimates of ~1C/(2*CO2) are the UPPER BOUND estimates, made by assuming that ALL the observed warming is caused by increasing CO2. Actual values of climate sensitivity are lower than 1C/doubling and probably much lower.
Sorry for missing your quote Allan. That was not intentional.
Yes, you have one source supporting your claim, but in AR5 and other places you find many going in the other direction.
I still think that we cannot just dismiss a lot of reports from reputed scientists because we have one source for the opposite.
Jan – AR5 etc are based on computer models that greatly over-predict warming. Their models simply do not work.
Every scary prediction by the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize – they have a perfectly negative predictive track record. Their conclusions are alarmist nonsense.
The warmists, including the IPCC, have negative credibility – nobody should believe them.
Can you please explain how the Ice ages occur when CO2 has increased more than 10 fold above todays values?
“I still think that we cannot just dismiss a lot of reports from reputed scientists because we have one source for the opposite.”
Should we perhaps then reevaluate this work because we cannot dismiss so many objections from reputed (sic) scientists?
“If I were wrong, it would only take one.”
– Albert Einstein
I was surprised to find that Henry’s Law, the diffusion of a gas in a liquid, was never mentioned in the article. Warm a can of Coke up and watch what happens. CO2 flys out of it. Same for the oceans.
CO2: Please see my conversation with Ferdinand below.
“There is no question that vegetation is a dominant factor – that the observed phenomenon is not just Henry’s Law.”
Rest assured that I am familiar with Henry’s Law – that is why we like our beer cold – it tastes better, and it does not go flat. We have much to thank Henry for.
With all those positive feedbacks, I presume we have been all boiling since the period when the CO2 concentration was 2000 ppm … oh wait, we are now in a glaciation period, aren’t we ?
You have to go about 200 million years years back to find 2000 ppm. The Sun was weaker then, and the Earth was warmer.
Be aware that positive feedback is not the same as runaway effect. We think that the positive feedback is between 0 and 1, runaway occur if the feedback is above 1.
/Jan
What about 6000ppm?
What is your excuse for that?
And you know the Sun was weaker because the Earth was cooler with higher CO2…. nice circular reasoning
Jan:
You say: “Rise in atmospheric water vapor with temperature is another source of positive feedback “.
I think you are wrong here. If you look at the thermodynamic behaviour of water as a whole you will find that the net feedback is negative.
It is true that without phase change the feedback is positive; but where phase change takes place the feedback is strongly negative.
For every kilogram of water evaporated some 680 WattHrs of energy are pumped up into the atmosphere and beyond due to the molecular buoyancy of the vapor which is created by the absorption of radiation at CONSTANT temperature which negates the warming effect.
It is also interesting to note that the temperature at which this phase change takes place is determined by the prevailing pressure which in turn is the result of gravity. Thus it is a very stable situation with little chance of the earth overheating to levels beyond which life can cope.
In trite terms: IMO the Earth sweats to keep cool, just like you and I. With water providing the thermostatic process.
Thank you Alasdair, you correctly points to one factor which contribute in the other direction.
How all the factors add up in the end is very complicated. That is the reason why the climate sensitivity is so uncertain.
/Jan
Brilliant Alan. My great appreciation. It comprehensively sums up the enormity of the problem. Never mind the niggles.
However; translating this into a form which meets the attention span of the average internet surfer boggles the mind.
Yes Alasdair,
The great American philosopher and statistician George Carlin explained it thus:
“Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!” 🙂
This lack of knowledge in the vast majority of people is indeed a serious problem, so we rely on engineers to honour their oath and advise on crucial decisions within the energy sector. Yet, it seems we have an ethical crisis with engineers on this highly politicized and financialized subject.
If people within the judicial system lack the ability to understand the complexities of this subject matter and our government agents are clueless, how then will this situation be resolved?
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3sh/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/scale:3/offset:-0.22
This doesn’t show anything physical. You might expect to see something like it in a laboratory experiment but how poor was the SH SST record before 1978? How much is the global CO2 level highly dependent on huge variations of the sources and sinks. These also cause huge changes locally and ESRL is a global measure from one site?
More anger management.
What is the point of your rant? It just looks like angry nonsense to me.
Nice graph, by the way.
Robert B, the problem with the graph by MacRae is that they are using the derivative of the CO2 signal. When you use that, it removes the trend. Effectively, they are comparing the “noise” of one signal with the “noise” of a 2nd signal. You are correct in stating it has no physical meaning.
It’s not noise. It correlates.
It is noise, and correlation is not causation.
Waiting for your explanation for the unmistakable match. Is it just a trick of a mischievous God, yanking our chains like he did with those fake dinosaur bones to suggest the Earth is greater than 6000 years old? Is it just an optical illusion? What is the fairy story you use to hide from the reality? I cannot WAIT to hear it.
Bartemis
“It’s not noise. It correlates.”
Really?
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3sh/from:1958/mean:36/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:36/scale:3/offset:-0.22
When you compare apples with oranges, then please choose the same size for both…
That’s so stupid. Why do people go to such lengths to obscure what is readily observable?
These data are stochastic. It’s not going to be a perfect fit. And, when you filter down to the lowest frequency, you start getting random walk type behavior.
But, when you look at the entire data set, you see there is a very high SNR consilience across the entire band.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.18/offset:0.144
This is as good as it gets in the real world. It is an unmistakable match. And, you are just shoving your head into the sand.
Bart
Answer known, still as redundant as ever. You turn every random aspect in your hand until it fitsd.
Nonsense. The fit is very straightforward, and requires only an offset (necessary because the baseline is arbitrary to begin with) and a scaling factor (necessary to match units).
You can’t just sweep such a remarkable match under the rug. You have to be able to explain it satisfactorily, and how it can still allow leeway for significant human impact (hint: it can’t).
Hi Bart – hope you and yours are all well.
Best, Allan
For the record Bart, I agree with you on this point.
If the warmists EVER had this kind of close correlation, they would be trumpeting it from the rooftops – but they never will, because the future cannot cause the past.
People who deny this correlation are denying the VERY obvious – and they know it.
Best personal regards, Allan
250 years of correlation between temperature and CO2
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/decadal-with-forcing-small.png
The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.
Nice graph from Berkeley – thank you Jack.
I suggest that Berkeley probably has the cart before the horse. 🙂
By that, I suggest that Berkeley is assuming that atm. CO2 primarily drives temperature, whereas in the pre-industrial era, temperature clearly drives CO2; in the post-industrial era, temperature and human activity drive CO2; and in both era’s, changing atm. CO2 has very little impact on temperature.
For your edification.
https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents
Regards to you, Allan. Nice work.
Jack – you’re off in model land. Everything is possible in model land.
Bart,
The 13C/12C ratio data show conclusively that most of the variability is caused by the reaction of the CO2 uptake by vegetation. As vegetation also is proven net sink for CO2, it can’t be the cause of the positive dCO2/dt slope. That means that slope en variability are from separated processes and there is no need to fit both with the same factor, as you in fact do.
Thus there is also no need to couple the slope with temperature and no proof that temperature caused the slope.
Moreover, either the slopes fits, but not the amplitudes:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:2018/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1958/to:2018/scale:0.16/offset:0.145/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:2018/derivative/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2018/scale:0.16/offset:0.145/trend
or the amplitudes fit, but not the slopes:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:2018/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1958/to:2018/scale:0.25/offset:0.1/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:2018/derivative/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2018/scale:0.25/offset:0.1/trend
Nonsense, Ferdinand. The isotopic ratio is not a unique condition for attribution, and the output of a linear least squares fit is not deterministic.
Bart,
The 13C/12C ratio, together with the oxygen balance is a unique marker to distinguish the cause of the variability in dCO2/dt between oceans and vegetation.
It is not an unique marker to distinguish between vegetation and human emissions, but as the latter are known with reasonable accuracy, one can calculate the difference in oxygen use between calculated from fossil fuel use and observed in the atmosphere. That difference is what the biosphere absorbed or released as CO2. See:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
There is no way that dCO2/dt variability and slope are caused by the same process, but that is exactly what your deduce from the only “proof” you have: the arbitrary fit of two noisy slopes…
Bart,
The δ13C data may not provide a unique solution, but it sure is interesting. The CO2 being added to the atmosphere (at circa 2ppm per year) has an average δ13C content of -13 per mil. This compares with atmospheric CO2 at -8.5 per mil and fossil fuels at -28 per mil. This proves that that the decline in atmospheric δ13C cannot be solely due fossil fuels (the actual decline is nowhere near as fast as it would be if that were the case).
In addition, the ENSO-scale variations in atmospheric CO2 cannot be solely explained as being due to vegetation. I will leave it at that for now since it is getting off topic, but let me know if you want more detail.
Ferdinand,
You have introduced the so-called oxygen balance as a “unique” marker”. If you wish to use this to support your position you probably should show the recent data (O2/N2 vs CO2, which is a straight line, by the way) and then you can explain why it is is changing in a constant ratio that does not match fossil fuel behaviour. Thanks.
What is your source for oxygen degassing, which is required to make the “balance” actually balance?
Thank you for your inputs, Jim. I think that:
A) we do not have the comprehensive knowledge of all sources and sinks we would need to conclude that the dC13 data is due exclusively to anthro inputs
B) This is a very intricate diffusion problem. It is entirely possible that we are responsible for a goodly share of the dC13 evolution, while not being responsible for the lion’s share of the increase in atmospheric concentration.
It is a very thin reed upon which to rest the entire case for anthropogenic attribution. It is nowhere near as compelling as the obvious match between the temperature anomaly and the rate of change of atmospheric concentration. It’s like having one suspect who was in the area of the crime when it was committed, versus the other who also was there, and is carrying a smoking gun.
Bart,
You are right to be skeptical, but it is actually quite easy to demonstrate that the following statement can be shown to be incorrect: “”we do not have the comprehensive knowledge of all sources and sinks we would need to conclude that the dC13 data is due exclusively to anthro inputs”. It cannot be due exclusively to anthro inputs (and the technical literature does not pretend that it is so). There are of course possible models to explain why it does not match, but the point that sticks in my mind is that the model of Keeling et al (2017) could not match the observed δ13C data without some “adjustments” and then it only matched the recent trend, not the long term behaviour. I can provide references if desired.
Allan,
The “warmists” use a lot of questionable data, but they agree on the fact that temperature variability is the main factor in the dCO2/dt variability. See the speech of Peter Tans at the festivities of 50 years Mauna Loa measurements, from sheet 11 on:
https://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
Where he and me and the IPCC disagree with Bart is that the slope of dCO2/dt also is caused by temperature, which is completely wrong: there is zero connection between the process that causes the variability and the process that causes the slope, as most of the variability is from the response of (tropical) vegetation to temperature changes, but vegetation as a whole is a proven sink for CO2: the earth is greening…
Jim Ross,
The most recent O2 data are at Scripps, via CDIAC:
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/oxygen/modern_records.html
I haven’t calculated the theoretical O2 decline from fossil fuel use (yet), but of you look at the plots, it looks like that the O2 decline is slightly faster than the CO2 increase, but that can be from the different scales:
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/assets/pdfs/plots/daily_avg_plots/alt.pdf
Anyway, chlorophyll is increasing all over the earth, thus at least theoretically there is more CO2 uptake than release, and preferably more 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. The biosphere as a whole thus can’t be the cause of the 13C/12C ratio decline and human emissions are then the main source as there are very few natural non-organic low 13C sources.
That the human “fingerprint” is diluted has a simple reason: what goes into the deep oceans is the isotopic composition of today (minus the isotopic shift at the air-water border), what comes out of the deep oceans is the isotopic composition of ~1000 years ago (minus the isotopic shift at the water-air border).
One can use the ancient “equilibrium” composition of upwelling waters of around -6.4 per mil with the atmosphere to calculate the deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
The discrepancy in earlier years is probably from vegetation, which was a small net source of CO2 before 1990 and a small, but increasing sink thereafter.
The 40 GtC exchange rate was independently confirmed by the faster 14C decline, with the same cause: upwelling from deep ocean waters from long before the bomb tests…
Thank you Alan MacRae. On a quick reading your results appear to agree closely with my analysis as shown on my web site at : https://www.climateauditor.com
Bevan Dockery,
I had a quick read of your work and don’t agree with:
support the original contention that the temperature drives the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
Temperature changes drive CO2 changes and the rate of change of temperature drives the rate of change in CO2. Both have a lag of CO2 changes after T changes.
Temperature does not drive CO2 rate of change, as there is no lag between them, thus no cause and effect established.
The point is that taking the derivative from a sinusoidal variable shows the same sinusoidal variability, only 90 degrees shifted back in time. That makes that T changes and dCO2/dt changes are synchronous, but that leads to an entirely spurious correlation…
Hi Ferdinand,
Re your comment re “spurious correlation…”
That was the first reaction when I wrote MacRae2008 – and it was dead wrong. Figure 1a cannot be spurious correlation.
The next reaction was that I had the math wrong – then people checked the math in the attached 2008 spreadsheet and found it was correct.
Then they said it “must be a feedback effect”, because they KNEW that CO2 was the primary driver of global temperature. They KNEW this based on molecular-scale physics, and never considered that planet Earth is somewhat larger than a molecule, and there might be serious scale-up effects.
As you know, the climate system is a lot more complicated than a molecule. It’s all about Earth, Wind, Water and Fire.
The warmists will continue to come up with specious nonsense to justify their false climate alarmism. “Drowning men clutch at straws.”
Allan, a word of advice to you. Ferdinand has debated this point with Bartemis a lot. Bart is light years ahead of any argument you have posted. However Ferdinand has also made Bart look foolish with this graph of a correlation which both you and Bart seem to think implies causation. It does not.
Christopher – Bart is a good guy, and he may be correct – he goes farther than I do – more like Salby et al. But please don’t tell me what I think – you are probably incorrect on that point.
I’m not telling you what you think, your writing shows us all what you think. Some of it is pathetic.
Angry ad homs Christopher – should be beneath you – but not.
You have made another mistake Mr. MacRae. I did not call you pathetic. If I did, that would be an ad hominem. I called the thinking exposed in your writing as pathetic. Labeling it as such is not an ad-hominem.
“However Ferdinand has also made Bart look foolish with this graph of a correlation which both you and Bart seem to think implies causation.”
How, exactly? What is your explanation for the virtual lockstep agreement? Ferdinand’s is to arbitrarily dismiss the excellent agreement in the long term trend, and effectively filter it out using an arbitrary system dynamic with physically implausible parameterization. It is very foolish.
It is not “lockstep.”
….
Show me the statistical numbers please…….eyeballing a graph proves nothing.
Bartemis, your graphic does not show which variable is dependent, and which one is independent.
Bart,
I have plotted exactly the same graph as you did where all the variability in dCO2/dt is caused by dT/dt with a lag and where all the slope is caused by human emissions.
dT/dt has no slope, only a slight offset from zero caused by a more or less linear increase of temperature itself over time. As vegetation is the dominating factor in the variability of dCO2/dt at one side, but also a proven net sink for CO2 on the other side, it can’t be the cause of the slope in dCO2/dt.
There is a similar correlation between T and dCO2/dt, but that is entirely spurious, as there is zero lag between these two.
Anyway, variability and slope have different causes. As human emissions are average twice the observed increase in the atmosphere, the simplest explanation that fits all observations is that human emissions caused most of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ocean surface temperatures are good for only about 10-15 ppmv of the increase…
Christopher –
“Bartemis, your graphic does not show which variable is dependent, and which one is independent.”
The arrow of causality is necessarily temperature to CO2 rate of change. It would be absurd to argue that temperature is being driven by the rate of change of CO2.
Ferdinand –
Your model is aphysical. I’m sorry, you cannot treat natural and anthropogenic inputs on an uneven playing field like that.
‘You have made another mistake Mr. MacRae. I did not call you pathetic. If I did, that would be an ad hominem. I called the thinking exposed in your writing as pathetic. Labeling it as such is not an ad-hominem.’
What an utterly chickenshit rationalization.
The same post was made below by “Joel Snider” and “Christopher Chantrill”.
How many more fake names do you have, you angry little troll?
(Joel Snider is legitimate, but Christopher Chantrill has been caught for several POLICY VIOLATIONS) SUNMOD
Bartemis says: “The arrow of causality is necessarily temperature to CO2 rate of change. ”
…
Making this assertion without any evidence is hand waving.
…
Bartemis then says: “It would be absurd to argue that temperature is being driven by the rate of change of CO2.”
…
You seem to forget that a 3rd, unmentioned factor may be present that is causal.
Allan MacRae resorts to name calling: “you angry little troll”
…
You’ve lost the argument Allan.
(You complain about name calling when YOU once again crashed the blog with your latest same set of POLICY VIOLATIONS, I am pretty sure I know who you are, give it up, you have been banned how many times now, 15-25 times?) SUNMOD
Additionally Bartemis states: “The arrow of causality is necessarily temperature to CO2 rate of change. ”
…
The problem you have Bartemis is that your graphic doesn’t show this. Your graphic shows a temperature anomaly not a temperature. Do you know the difference?
“Making this assertion without any evidence is hand waving.”
Mmm, no. It is an obvious conclusion. It would make no sense for the rate of change of CO2 to drive temperature. If that were the case, we could pump it up as high as we liked, and once we stopped, the temperature would drop to its prior level regardless of the final concentration.
“You seem to forget that a 3rd, unmentioned factor may be present that is causal.”
A) Suggest even one plausible possibility
B) Question is moot – regardless, it’s not us
“Your graphic shows a temperature anomaly not a temperature.”
So what? It is perfectly reasonable to expect that, absent any change in the anomaly, there would be little to no change in CO2.
It amazes me how people will nitpick this obvious relationship with tiresome and inconsequential arguments in order to avoid dealing with its basic reality. They focus no such scrutiny on the alleged anthropogenic relationship, despite the fact that there is nothing close to this detailed a correlation demonstrating a relationship between anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric concentration.
Apologies Joel. My error.
Bart,
We have been there too many times. Again: your theory violates every known observation, while “my” theory fits them all:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
Again: there is no difference in treatment between natural and human CO2: any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere above the dynamic equilibrium between the solubility of CO2 for the average ocean surface temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere is treated the same, no matter the cause: volcanoes or humans. As humans emit about 100 times more extra CO2 than volcanoes, that is the source of the increase, not temperature (which is good for not more than 16 ppmv/K) or any other natural cause.
That it is for now…
Yes, we have been here many times. There is no violation of any observation, only of particular narratives for some observations. And, yes, your model takes the “natural” equilibrium for granted, and patches another arbitrary set of dynamics on top of it to deal with the anthropogenic portion that:
A) has no continuity with the natural dynamics
B) way too conveniently removes the trend in the temperature data from influencing the CO2 rate of change, even though that trend matches the trend in the CO2 rate of change when scaled such that the variations match.
Ferdinand
We know that the temperature determines the seasons. We know that the seasons determine the cycle of life. Life forms both consume and emit CO2. Thus temperature indirectly determines the change in CO2 concentration.
The seasonal variation in CO2 concentration in the Northern Hemisphere, which has the greatest land mass, shows that terrestrial life is by far the main determinant of the CO2 concentration. This makes it likely that perennial life forms are a major contributor to the generation of CO2 over and above the seasonal variation.
We know that temperature determines life, compare the profusion of life in the Tropics to the dearth of life at the Poles.
The reason why CO2 has been increasing with time over recent millennia is because the temperature has remained great enough to cause a positive rate of change of CO2. That rate will possibly not fall to zero until the temperature falls to below zero degrees Centigrade when water freezes and is no longer available to life so most of life perishes and is no longer available to produce CO2. This is confirmed by ice core data which shows that the rapid decline in temperature at the start of an ice age is followed some time later by the fall in CO2 concentration. There is a similar delay with increasing temperature being followed by increasing CO2 concentration at the start of an inter-glacial period. That is CO2 concentration has little or no effect on temperature.
We now see that the conjunction of the Earth, Venus and Jupiter determines the timing of Solar minima. Hence the configuration of the Solar System determines the Earth’s temperature. There is no place for CO2 induced global warming or climate change which has always been a false proposition. The minute amount of infrared radiation released by atmospheric CO2 cannot warm the Earth’s surface, even in the unlikely event that it should reach that surface, because it falls within the spectra of the Earth’s radiation and the Earth can only be warmed by radiation emitted by a hotter body.
CO2 has not caused global warming or climate change.
Ferdinand you wrote:
“Temperature does not drive CO2 rate of change, as there is no lag between them, thus no cause and effect established.”
Ferdinand my friend- please look at Figures 6a and 6b. There is a clear time lag (and a clear causative mechanism) between the sequence of events,
Fig.6a – Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity (offset) increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms…
Fig.6b …and UAH LT Tropics Atmospheric Temperature leads UAH LT Global Atmospheric Temperature, which leads changes in Atmospheric CO2.
The driving mechanism in the sequence is tropical sea surface temperature, which clearly precedes atmospheric temperature and dCO2/dt, and changes in atm. CO2 happen ~9 months later – it all works. 🙂
Regarding the issue of lag or no lag of CO2 growth rate … I think it comes down to the method used to “remove” the seasonal cycle from the data. Allan’s plots clearly show the lag and I believe he is using the difference between months that are 12 months apart (i.e. Jan one year to Jan the next year, same for Feb etc.) and then asigning the change to the later month (Allan refers to this on his graphs as the 12 month delta). This makes sense to me.
Bartemis’ WFT plot uses the mean of 12 CO2 values (samples) to remove the annual cycle which, as a rolling 12 month mean, the first sign of an increase in CO2 growth rate will be when the “leading edge” of the rolling mean sees it. However, in WFT, the value of the mean is plotted at the mid-point of the rolling average period and hence shows up on the plot 6 months earlier than the actual increase in CO2 growth rate occurs. Adjusting for that should show the correct lag (and clarify which is the dependent variable).
The purpose of the 12 month average is to remove the annual cycle in order to see the long term relationship. The average filter has a group delay of 6 months, which WFT automatically compensates.
The numerical differentiation of the CO2 signal to obtain the rate of change provides a 90 deg phase lead, and this signal is contemporaneous with the temperature anomaly. Re-integrating the rate of change then subtracts the phase lead back out. There is therefore no question but that the CO2 signal, i.e. the integrated rate of change, lags the temperature signal.
Jim Ross,
The problem is not in the plots, the problem is that Bart compares T variability with dCO2/dt variability. With the latter removing most of the trend in CO2 and enhancing the noise around the trend.
One should compare T variability and trend with CO2 variability and trend or compare the derivatives of both. In both cases there is a lag of CO2 variability after T variability of no more than +/- 1.5 ppmv around a trend of 90+ ppmv CO2 (and human emissions totaling 180+ ppmv), here enhanced for the Pinatubo – 1998 El Niño period:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg
Comparing dT/dt with dCO2/dt shows exact the same variability as for T, but no trend at all and a clear lag for dCO2/dt:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_der.jpg
Reason why: taking the derivative of a sinusoidal variable shows the same variability, but shifted 90 degrees back in time, making that T variability and dCO2/dt variability are completely synchronous, but that is an entirely spurious correlation, as explained and discussed in:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/
An “entirely spurious” correlation that just happens to match perfectly (or, as “perfectly” as one tends to get in this imperfect world). You have no justification for arbitrarily dismissing that correlation, Ferdinand, except that you don’t think it should be there. But, it is there.
Bartemis and Ferdinand,
Thank you both for your response. I prefer Allan’s approach as shown in his figure 1a using 12 month delta (assuming that I am interpreting that correctly), but it does seem that there is agreement between you both (and Allan) that there is a lag between short term variations in temperature and CO2 growth rate, with temperature leading CO2.
There is no way that I can buy the argument that the excellent correlation presented by both Allan and Bart is “spurious”, however, or that these short term variations should be described as “noise”. ENSO variations are clearly a key part of the story, as Allan shows. I also think that δ13C is important in adding extra insight, but I disagree with Ferdinand on his interpreation of that data.
Jim Ross,
Please read the discussion in my last reference, where the problem of Bart’s spurious correlation is explained:
There is a direct correlation between T variability and CO2 variability with a lag.
There is a direct correlation between dT/dt variability and dCO2/dt variability with a lag.
These two correlations show cause and effect.
There is a direct correlation between T variability and dCO2/dt variability without a lag.
That correlation is entirely spurious, as that is caused by taking the derivative of one of the variables (including removing the bulk of its trend) and not of the other…
That also is mathematically explained by Paul_K in a discussion at Bishop’s Hill blog at the 4th comment on the second page of comments:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/10/21/diary-date-murry-salby.html?currentPage=2#comments
Ferdinand,
Thanks very much for the link to Bishop Hill. I do not have time to look at it in detail right now, but I did notice this quote by Paul Dennis: “Not least of these is the fact that the PCO2 of the atmosphere is greater than that of the surface ocean thus the dominant CO2 flux is from atmosphere to ocean despite the small temperature rise that has occurred.”
Fact!!! The global balance of pCO2 is a bit like the global average temperature … meaningless unless you understand all the details, especially data coverage. It is not helpful, in my view, to make such a statement without providing the basis for it. This is not feasible, since the coverage is sparse, especially in the southern oceans which are likely to be extremely important. Even so, the author seems to be completely unaware that in many parts of the world, the exact opposite is true (surface ocean pCO2 exceeds atmospheric pCO2, sometimes by a huge amount) and, even more important, the annual variations in the oceans far exceeds the variations in atmospheric pCO2. See, just for a bit of fun: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Twanoh (wait for plots).
This is gibberish, Ferdinand. Taking the derivative is not “removing the bulk of its trend”. It is simply turning it into an offset. The offset is arbitrary because the temperature anomaly baseline is arbitrary.
But, the trend in the CO2 derivative matches the trend in temperature anomaly, when the scale factor is chosen to match the variability. You have no basis whatsoever for dismissing that trend from consideration.
I’m going to bug out of the conversation now. Looking at Ferdinand’s comment, I note we have been at this since 2013, and actually several years before that when I first noticed the relationship between temperature anomaly and CO2 rate of change (a relationship that Allan, it turned out, had noticed some years before me). I suppose we have said everything there is to be said in that time.
Time will tell. Already, there is a stark divergence developing between accumulated emissions, which are still accelerating, and atmospheric concentration, which has been at a steady rate (no acceleration) since the onset of the “pause” in temperature anomaly.
If, as many expect, the solar minimum and other converging factors produce a marked downturn, or even continued stasis, in temperature anomaly, the discrepancy will eventually become too large to deny any longer. Such a stark contradiction is generally what is needed to overturn such a firmly embedded paradigm as the attribution of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration to human activity.
When and if that day comes, I intend to be forthright, gracious, and magnanimous in allowing that anyone could have been fooled by the portents available at the time.
Strike that. Reverse it. I intend to grind it in. This is beyond obvious. It’s a slam dunk, and has been for all the years since I began arguing it. Until we meet again, Ferdinand!
Jim Ross,
The pCO2 data of the ocean surface are sparse, but cover several centuries and more and more all oceans. There is a nice compilation of over 2 million measurements by Feely et al. at:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
and following pages, including pCO2 maps of the oceans.
There is in (area weighted) average about 7 μatm (~ppmv) more CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere than in the ocean surface seawater.
An independent proof is the increase in DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon): there are only a few places and repeated sea ship measurements over longer periods (a few decades), but all of them (except for upwelling zones and estuary’s) show the same trends: increasing DIC by decreasing pH. That points to absorption of CO2 by the ocean surface out of the atmosphere, not reverse, or DIC should go lower with an increasing pH…
Here for several monitoring stations:
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/27-1_bates.pdf
Ferdinand,
Your first reference quotes the 7 µatm for ΔpCO2 (with atmospheric pCO2 exceeding surface seawater) but, as far as I can see, it provides no estimate of the uncertainty in that figure. Without such an error estimate, it is a meaningless number given the enormous geographical and seasonal variations in seawater pCO2. The authors acknowledge “a range between about 150 µatm and 750 µatm, or about 60% below and 100% above the current atmospheric pCO2 level of about 370 µatm” and more recent data shows an even larger range. Computing a global average ΔpCO2 under such circumstances must involve a significant range of uncertainty plus, of course, there was a recent paper highlighting that there were areas around the Antarctic which were recently found to be outgassing CO2 when they were expected to be a sink (https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/08/14/diving-robots-find-antarctic-seas-release-surprising-amounts-carbon-dioxide-winter). Hence, even more uncertainty.
Your second reference is at least based on more recent data, but only covers 7 locations, all of which are in the Northern Hemisphere. One very interesting snippet from the paper is that at two of the locations, “DIC and pCO2 have increased at a rate higher than expected from equilibration with increasing atmospheric pCO2 contents”. Hmm. How can that be if the source of CO2 is the atmosphere?
Jim,
Agreed that the 7 ppmv difference needs broad error bars. Indeed still a lot of air-ocean exchanges is not or hardly known.
The second reference anyway is more to the point, even if it is only for 7 series, be it that repeated measurements over the same transects (also in the SH) show the same trends. Here the results for one of them:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661116300039?via%3Dihub
That a few locations show a faster DIC increase than expected may have different (biological) reasons, but doesn’t change the conclusion that the average CO2 flux is from atmosphere into the oceans and not reverse…
Bart,
Taking the differential from the CO2 increase (both accumulated emissions and atmosphere) makes it a straight slope instead of a slightly quadratic increase over the years and enhances the +/- 1.5 ppmv “noise” around the 90+ ppmv trend to something important.
Taking the differential from the temperature increase removes the original slope and shows no slope at all in the derivative, only a slight offset from zero. And there too the variability is blown up to something important, while it is just noise with a very small effect on longer term, from the offset, not from the noise.
But indeed, that was all said before… See you next time…
Hi Bevan – just read your https://www.climateauditor.com
Fascinating stuff – lots to think about – thank you.
Best, Allan
Dear Allan,
May I disagree with your first sentence:
In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.
While that is mostly true, it is not true for the 115 ppmv increase of CO2 since about 1850.
Any increase in temperature will increase the CO2 level with some lag, but that is limited to the change in solubility of CO2 in seawater, which changes with about 16 ppmv/K change in temperature. Thus the warming since the LIA may have given 5-13 ppmv CO2 extra, depending of what temperature reconstruction you prefer, but the rest of the 115 ppmv increase is not caused by temperature…
In this case CO2 leads temperature, but indeed, how much warming that will give is an open question.
Further some extra background information: while the ocean temperatures are the trigger for the fast response CO2 variability, the effect is mostly in tropical vegetation: during an El Niño the Amazon and other tropical forests dries out and releases a lot of CO2 (including forest fires), while the Pinatubo did give a boost in CO2 uptake due to scattering of sunlight which did enhance photosynthesis in leaves normally part of the day in the shadow of other leaves:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
The opposite CO2 and δ13C changes show that the CO2 uptake/release is dominated by vegetation. If it was by the oceans, CO2 and δ13C changes should parallel each other…
But that is short-term variability which is not more than about 4-5 ppmv/K and not more than +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90+ ppmv trend over the past 60 years, even for the temperature extremes.
@ Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng.,
Allan, in that I am not permitted to include displayable graphics in my postings, would you be so kind and accommodating as to post the graphic of the Keeling Curve Graph that is accessible via …. this url hyperlink ……. along with the following descriptive title for said graphic, to wit:
“Keeling Curve Graph of atmospheric CO2 ppm – December 1965 thru May 2019”
And if so, Allan, …… my 2nd request is for you to offer your learned opinion on/of:
#1- the “cause” of the 54 years of “steady and consistent” yearly increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm as defined by the up-swinging “red line” on said graph.
#2 – the “cause” of the 54 years of “steady and consistent” bi-yearly (seasonal) increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2 ppm as defined by the “yellow” saw-tooth pattern on said graph … and also defined by the mini-graph denoting the “Annual cycle of CO2”.
Allan, and a bonus question for you, …… what do you suppose is so “magical” about the “last few days of September” …… and the “few days after mid-May” of each and every calendar year, …… that causes the aforesaid “seasonal” switch or oscillation in atmospheric CO2 ppm as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and/or Keeling Curve Graph?
Your humble student of the natural world,
Sam C
Hi Sam – the Keeling Curve is the first Figure in MacRae2008 at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
As I recall, you asked this question once before and then dumped all over my answer. Is my recollection correct?
There is a short answer to your question in Section 8, as follows:
The huge “seasonal sawtooth” Keeling Curve of atmospheric CO2 is dominated by photosynthesis in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) Spring that draws down CO2, and oxidation in the Fall and Winter that releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. The Keeling Curve amplitude ranges from ~16 ppm at Barrow Alaska to ~1 ppm at the South Pole. The seasonal CO2 flux is much greater than the ~2 ppm average annual increase in CO2.
ALLAN MACRAE – June 16, 2019 at 11:57 am
Shur nuff, Allan, ….. a fine graphic that would impress the ell out of a 3 year old as you explained what a “blue’ wiggley line was. Did you use that graphic in your PhD thesis?
And here is a short response to one of your claims in said Section 8, to wit:
And pretty much every Health Department/Agency worldwide will attest to the above.
And Allan Mac, here is another commentary that you will surely avert your eyes and your mind to, …… even if you take a couple minutes to read it, to wit:
Ooooh, that smell! Odors rise with the temperature
Hi Ferdinand, you say:
“The opposite CO2 and δ13C changes show that the CO2 uptake/release is dominated by vegetation. If it was by the oceans, CO2 and δ13C changes should parallel each other…”
Are you aware that according to NOAA the δ13C of any CO2 flux between (to/from) ocean and atmosphere is about -10 per mil, i.e. also LOWER than current atmospheric δ13C, though to a much lesser extent than vegetation (circa -26 per mil)? If NOAA is correct, this would conflict with your argument about parallel changes. I have not been able to find the basis for NOAA’s value, but just wanted you to be aware of this. I can dig out a link if you want it.
Jim Ross,
You are correct that there is a huge change in δ13C at the sea-air border of about -10 per mil, but also a similar change at the air-sea border of -2 per mil δ13C in the other direction, thus about – 8 per mil δ13C overall change, if sources and sinks are near equal.
The deep oceans are at about zero per mil δ13C, but the surface is between +1 and +5 per mil δ13C, entirely caused by bio-life: that uses preferentially 12C for its organics, leaving relative more 13C in the surface waters. Part of the organics (and inorganics) drop out of the surface and are either decomposed in the deep oceans or piling up in sediments.
Thus theoretically, the atmosphere in equilibrium with the ocean surface (or deep oceans) can be between -8 and -3 per mil δ13C.
Observations in ice cores show a pre-industrial value of around -6.4 per mil δ13C, with a variability of +/- 0.2 per mil δ13C. Even huge CO2 changes like between glacial and inter-glacial periods don’t show more than a few tenths of a per mil change.
Here the comparison for coralline sponges between the ocean surface (near Bermuda) and the atmosphere over the past 600 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
If we may assume that the (deep) ocean – atmosphere exchanges still give an average -6.4 per mil δ13C level in the atmosphere, then any huge CO2 release from the oceans would increase the current below -8 per mil δ13C level in the atmosphere, while a huge CO2 release from vegetation will give a huge drop further down, besides what fossil fuels already do.
No, sorry Ferdinand, but perhaps I did not spell it out sufficiently for you. Th current NOAA data, taking into account fractionation, is that air-sea interchange reflects a δ13C of -10.0 per mil and sea-air is -9.5 per mil. It is not “-2 per mil in the other direction”. The difference due to atmospheric-ocean interchange is a mere 0.5 per mil (if NOAA is correct). As I pointed out below, this means that yuor statement that “any huge CO2 release from the oceans would increase the current below -8 per mil δ13C level in the atmosphere” is NOT correct according to NOAA. I am not convinced that the NOAA data is valid, but that is another story, since we do see an increase (or at least a lack of decrease) in δ13C during La Niñas.
Jim,
I think the NOAA data must be wrong, as the pre-industrial average δ13C in the atmosphere was -6.4 per mil and in the oceans between zero (deep oceans) and +1 to +5 per mil (surface).
If NOAA was right, then the exchanges with the atmosphere would increase the per mil in the atmosphere at equilibrium to -0.5 to +4.5 per mil, which was never seen in (ice core) history. Anyway, with the NOAA figures, the ocean exchanges would increase the δ13C level even faster for net extra CO2 emissions.
My -2 per mil difference at the air-water border comes from:
https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_16/SCOPE_16_1.5.05_Siegenthaler_249-257.pdf
Which includes the calculations to give the figures…
The El Niño / La Niña correlation is directly coupled with ocean flows: during an El Niño, far less CO2 is released by the oceans as the upwelling is stopped. At the same time, the Amazon dries out which gives far less uptake, more decay and a lot of forest fires.
With a La Niña, the opposite happens, again with vegetation dominant in the δ13C changes due to much more uptake, leaving relative more 13C in the atmosphere.
The same for the Pinatubo: the sunlight scattering by stratospheric (SO2) aerosols enhanced photosynthesis due to getting more sunlight on leaves which are normally part of the day in the shadow of other leaves… I had a reference to the latter study, but that doesn’t work anymore…
Ferdinand,
The NOAA values are given at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html – scroll to bottom of page. I was explicitly referring to NOAA’s estimate of “δ13C of any CO2 flux”, taking into account fractionation. So perhaps you were referring to the fractionation effect alone, rather than the flux content. In any event, if the flux from ocean to atmosphere has a δ13C of -9.5 per mil, this is not consistent with atmospheric CO2 and its δ13C increasing in parallel if the ocean was the source of the increase. This is very important as it would contradict years of dogma.
Further, the differential fractionation of 0.5 per mil (according to NOAA) for interchange between ocean and atmosphere is used in the literature in order to “explain” the fact that the atmospheric δ13C decline rate is much less than -28 per mil expected for fossil fuels, e.g. http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GB001845/pdf. See Table 1 and Figure 5 (they use 0.6 per mil for the differential fractionation).
I have seen the “sunlight scattering” paper. There was a later paper (different author) which purported to show that the earlier argument was not valid. I may be able to find that reference.
Jim,
I understand what NOAA means with that story and for vegetation the story is right: what goes into vegetation today has less δ13C than is coming back from ancient decaying wood.
It is not easy to understand what they mean for the δ13C changes with ocean exchanges.
Figure 5. in your second reference makes it more clear: there are two parts in the isotopic changes caused by the ocean-atmosphere exchanges:
– The light blue line is the δ13C change caused by the 90 Pg/year ocean-atmosphere exchanges.
– The dark blue line is the δ13C change caused by the net sink rate in the oceans, thus the difference between ocean sources and sinks.
Both are relative to the current atmosphere: part of what returns is ancient CO2 with higher δ13C than if it would return immediately from current sinks in the first case. Thus the real fractionation only plays a role in the second part, where relative small sinks have a huge impact.
Even so, in both cases, the impact of more circulation over of more uptake by the oceans is positive: the δ13C level goes up.
The δ13C changes in the atmosphere over the Holocene are rather small: 0.25 per mil up right after the melt of the ice caps, due to expanding vegetation and 0.05 per mil down in the later part:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08393
The (free) SI is interesting too and contains the graphs:
https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v461/n7263/extref/nature08393-s1.pdf
Compare that to the -1.6 per mil drop caused by human emissions…
Ferdinand,
The Randerson et al model acknowledges that the net δ13C composition of the incremental atmospheric CO2 is, based on actual observations, circa -13 per mil (Figure 5, black line). Obviously this value is nowhere close to -28 per mil (from fossil fuels) and proves that any argument that the trend in atmospheric δ13C data can be entirely explained by fossil fuel emissions, including the effect of assumed uptake by the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans, is simply not valid. Their estimate of the effect of incorporating atmospheric-ocean interchange of CO2 shows that this would have to be the major part of their model ‘balance’.
Of course, their model only seeks to explain the observed δ13C behaviour for a single year (1990). It can be demonstrated from actual measurements (since about 1980), Law Dome ice core and firn data, and sponge data, that the trend in atmospheric δ13C data from pre-industrial time is also explained by the addition of CO2 with an average net δ13C of -13 per mil.
Despite this apparently simple relationship of a constant δ13C content (with fluctuations due to ENSO), Keeling et al (https://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10361) still could not develop a model that fully explains the δ13C behaviour, and that was only two years ago. So, not quite ‘settled science’ then.
Hi Ferdinand,
I hope you are well.
You and I have discussed this matter online since 2008 and I understand your position. However, you typically conflate my position with that of Salby er al, and ignore my statements that I am agnostic on this question.
I wrote in Sect. 6:
“Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2.”
The causes of the increase in atm. CO2 do not have to be all natural or all human-made – it is most likely a combination of both factors, and trying to estimate the magnitudes is a great task – for others – see Harde 2019.
There is no question that vegetation is a dominant factor – that the observed phenomenon is not just Henry’s Law. I wrote in Section 8:
“The huge “seasonal sawtooth” Keeling Curve of atmospheric CO2 is dominated by photosynthesis in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) Spring that draws down CO2, and oxidation in the Fall and Winter that releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. The Keeling Curve amplitude ranges from ~16 ppm at Barrow Alaska to ~1 ppm at the South Pole. The seasonal CO2 flux is much greater than the ~2 ppm average annual increase in CO2.”
I will point out to you that during the period of global cooling from ~1945 to 1977, CO2 reportedly increased, but global temperatures declined. That is more evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing atm. CO2 is very low – possibly too low to measure.
ALLAN MACRAE – June 16, 2019 at 8:15 am
(responding to Ferdinand Engelbeen)
“Yes”, there is a question, …… a big question. And just because you and others avert your eyes and mind to said “question” doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Your above rhetoric is not only FUBAR, ……. but is also a biological impossibility.
“DUH”, …. photosynthesis in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) begins in mid-January in the southern “temperate” latitudes north of the equator, ……… and progresses slowly toward the northern latitudes (Alaska, Canada, Russia) by mid to late June.
And the initial “Spring growth” by the green vegetation is accomplished via the “sugars” stored in the roots and seeds. They all have to “grow” mature foliage (leaves) before they can start ingassing CO2 from the atmosphere.
And microbial decomposition (oxidation) of dead biomass in the NH begins with “gusto” when the temperature of the dead biomass rises above 40 degrees F in March and/or April and there is sufficient moisture in said dead biomass.
Thus, the microbial CO2 “outgassing” begins a few weeks before the green biomass CO2 “ingassing” begins ….. and they both pretty much “quit” their ingassing/outgassing when the Fall season arrives.
Again, in case you didn’t hear me. ….. it is biologically impossible for very much microbial decomposition (oxidation) of dead biomass to occur in the NH “Fall and Winter” …… simply because Fall (September-November) begins “dry & warm” and ends “wet & cold” (below 40F) and Winter follows suite. “DUH”, dead biomass decomposing microbes “don’t work” iffen its too “dry” or too ”cold”. (What the hell do you think the reason is for people owning refrigerators and freezers?) Allan, if you don’t agree with me, then argue with these people, …. maybe you can force them to “get smart soon”.
The Keeling Curve defines the Mauna Loa, Hawaii CO2 ppm at an elevation of 3,397 meters above sea level where the humidity is “zilch”.
Allan, NOAA’s Barrow Alaska Research Laboratory is situate at only 11 meters above sea level and highly subject to changes in humidity and decomposing (oxidizing) biomass.
Yes Sam – that’s pretty much the same rant that you screeched at me the last time. Why can’t you conduct yourself in a civil manner? Is it ADHD, depression, schizo, or what? What’s your excuse?
Frankly Sam, this question is not critical to my hypothesis, so I don’t really care. It is part of the CO2 mass balance question, which deeply concerns others on this page like Ferdinand, and on which I am officially agnostic. Let others work on it – see Harde 2019.
So what do you think causes the Keeling Curve “seasonal sawtooth?
SNIPPED SUNMOD
Allan Mac, ….. you are correct, …… it is the same “rant” that I screeched at you in my WUWT posting on
October 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm. It was apparently contrary to your “funded interests” at that time and apparently still is contrary.
Just “click” on the above hyperlink ……. and read with “comprehension” to better educate yourself.
Frankly Allan, ….. the per se “question” of your claim that “There is no question that vegetation is a dominant factor ” ……… sure as hell is critical to your hypothesis …… simply because your hypothesis is 100% dependent on the NH vegetation being responsible for the average 6 ppm decrease in CO2 between mid-May and October 01.
My negating and discrediting of the ”NH ‘ingassing’ vegetation” claim, …… automatically negates and discredits the “CO2 causing AGW Climate Change” claim, ….. which in turn negates and discredits any of your claims that are based in/on the aforesaid AGW “junk science”.
Allan, I don’t hafta think about it anymore, …. I now know for a fact what causes the bi-yearly (seasonal) cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 as defined by the Keeling Curve Graph via the Mauna Loa Record. It is directly caused by the bi-yearly changes in the temperature of ocean waters in the SH, …. which is directly caused by the changing of the equinoxes ….. simply because the “changing of the equinoxes” is the ONLY steady n’ consistent bi-yearly cycling in the natural world that we know of.
And given the FACT that the hemispheric dependent warming and cooling of the ocean waters is responsible for the 6 ppm bi-yearly cycling, …… then the slow and gradual “warm-up” of the ocean waters from the cold of the LIA is therefore responsible for the 1 to 2 ppm yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. And there is proof-positive evidence that El Ninos, La Ninas and volcanic eruptions will affect those atmospheric CO2 measurements.
Sam wrote:
“It was apparently contrary to your “funded interests”…”
Sam, how rude! – I have no “funded interests”- pls send me some – beaucoup!
Thanks for your explanation – why didn’t you say that before instead of your hillbilly rant?
I have not done enough original work on this issue to refute you, and will keep your concept in mind.
You probably understand that you are swimming upstream against the consensus on this point – the NH vegetation concept is not of my making – it belongs to NOAA, NASA and predecessors. Anyway – good luck with your concept.
ALLAN MACRAE – June 17, 2019 at 4:34 pm
Allan, I said it before HERE, are you hard at reading or what?
And just what is your problem with a “hillbilly rant”?
“HA”, … SPERRY RAND CORP didn’t have a problem with this hillbilly rant that I authored.
And my older brother George was highly noted for his hillbilly rants.
Hi Sam – no I did not read your long comment of 2017 – by that point, I was ignoring you.
When you phrase your comments in a needlessly hostile manner, and affect your Jed Clampett hillbilly rant style, I tend to dismiss your comments as the ravings of a somewhat-imbalanced individual. It is not funny, informative or clever – it is just foolish and offensive.
For the record, I think your hypothesis is false, but it is not even relevant to this discussion. It is your particular fixation, not mine, and I suggest you debate it with Ferdinand, who has expertise in this area.
ALLAN MACRAE – June 18, 2019 at 6:20 am
Allan, of course my per se hypothesis is absolutely relevant to this discussion.
Your 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs (sentences) that you listed in the preface of your above published commentary, following the word “ABSTRACT”, …. were stated as “factual evidence” or proofs ……. in support and justification of the remaining contents/context of your commentary.
Those 4 sentences SPECIFICALLY link, attest to, infer, suggest and/or claim that ….. “the lagged changes in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities are directly related to changes in near-surface atmospheric temperatures”.
Your stated claims are therefore directly CONTRARY to my hypothesis therefore making it relevant to this discussion.
Do you know what “biologically impossible” actually means?
Sam wrote:
“the lagged changes in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities are directly related to changes in near-surface atmospheric temperatures”.
For clarity, I wrote in Sect. 6:
“6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).”
Clearly, atmospheric temperature is an intermediate step in the sequence – Tropical SST leads.
The entire CO2 balance of the planet is included in the resulting changes in atm. CO2 – all the terrestrial photosynthesis and oxidation, all the ocean solution and exsolution, and all the results of fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. etc. I am analyzing the results of the entire global CO2 balance – the whole enchilada.
Your hypo says the Keeling “sawtooth” is driven primarily via Henry’s Law (seasonal solution and exsolution of CO2 from the oceans), and terrestrial photosynthesis and oxidation does not contribute significantly – my preferred hypo is that terrestrial photosynthesis and oxidation is the major contributor to that seasonal “sawtooth”.
In my Sect. 8, there is this reference:
The Keeling Curve, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
Within that site there is this reference:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/05/07/why-are-seasonal-co2-fluctuations-strongest-in-northern-latitudes/
[excerpt}
“These latitudinal differences in [atm. CO2] fluctuation are the result of photosynthetic activity by plants. As plants begin to photosynthesize in the spring and summer, they consume CO2 from the atmosphere and eventually use it as a carbon source for growth and reproduction. This causes the decrease in CO2 levels that begins every year in May. Once winter arrives, plants save energy by decreasing photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis, the dominant process is the exhalation of CO2 by the total ecosystem, including bacteria, plants, and animals.”
I tend to favour the above Scripps hypo over yours Sam – but I don’t really care that much – because either way, my core hypo stands, repeating:
“6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).”
Let us simply disagree Sam – I understand what you are saying, I just do not accept it, but I don’t really care that much. Others like Ferdinand have done much more work on this question of CO2 balance – maybe you can discuss with him. Alternatively, contact Scripps and see if they will talk to you.
This conversation is largely irrelevant for me – let others work on the CO2 balance.
I wrote in Sect. 8 and I believe strongly:
“Regardless of the cause, the increase in CO2 is strongly beneficial to humanity and the environment.”
With respect, I am done with this conversation – over and out.
The evidence in the article that the rise in temperature precedes the rise in CO2 is detailed and convincing. What, then, remains the supporters of the theory of the greenhouse effect?
“Scientists who support the catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW) hypothesis say that based on physics at the molecular scale, they KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more CO2 will cause warming.”
In fact, there is not a single publication based on the principles of molecular physics, which would prove that the ability of greenhouse gas molecules to absorb IR radiation causes their absorption of heat, unlike the main components of the atmosphere. There is, however, an attempt to give a supposedly scientific justification for the greenhouse effect:
https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-1/
https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-2/
In fact, this publication contains only unsupported arguments about the role of the dipole moment of molecules (although the H2O molecules are polar, and CO2 and CH4 are non-polar) and that the absorption of infrared radiation leads to the occurring of a temporary dipole moment. The author does not even try to explain how the change in the rotational and vibrational energy of molecules (absorption of IR radiation) is related to the gas temperature, which, according to the kinetic theory of gases, is determined by the kinetic energy of the translational motion of molecules. Neither the author of this publication nor anyone else tried to explain from the point of view of the “physics of the greenhouse effect” the well-known fact that nitrogen, oxygen and argon, which do not absorb IR radiation, nevertheless absorb heat, in accordance with their heat capacity.
Therefore, there is hardly any reason to believe that the theory of the greenhouse effect has a reliable scientific basis.
Allan I think we are pretty much on the same page. See https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html
Here is the conclusion:
“For the details see data, discussion, and forecasts in Figs3,4,5,10,11,and 12 in the links below.
See the Energy and Environment paper The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html See also the discussion with Professor William Happer at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.”
Mr. Macrae Three papers for your consideration and comment
SOLAR INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf
Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2009.0519
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
Harumph…
I guess its all just fine.
The world is coming to an end.
Most of the smart people who do dumb things will hold the rest of us accountable.
While they drink their $7.00 frappachinos, decaf, double shot, marshmallow gluten free toppers…
And toot around town on their ride-and-drop electrified sort-a skate boards.
Meanwhile, us F–150 driving 5 × 16 foot trailer hauling working stiffs … work.
As the world is coming to an end.
Sigh.
They do seem to like their faux-sustainable non-GMO (ho!) baby amaranth hemp-oil eustatic sim-milk.
Raised by my fellow farmers, with John Deere combines, ploughs, disks, and plenty of diesel.
As the world is coming to an end.
Yet … there is precious little evidence of that on farms today.
Yields are surprisingly good.
Weather is surprisingly similar to decades, centuries past.
Precipitation is unsurprisingly quixotic … but kind of averages out.
Tarmac gets ruined by winter freezes, summer deluges.
Same ol’, same ol’.
As the world is coming to an end.
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
Hi GoatGuy – you wrote: “I guess it’s all just fine.”
And you are correct – hold on to that thought, and hold on to your wallet… …and your freedom.
And don’t let them get your goat. 🙂
Excerpt from my paper:
“Global warming / climate change alarmism is the most expensive and the most lucrative scientific error in history. There is ample evidence of fraud.
Epilogue
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
– “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, Charles Mackay, 1841.”
Thank you for the reply.
To the excellent quote “Men it has been well said think in herds; they go mad in herds and perhaps recover their senses slowly, one by one” (paraphrased), I have a rejoinder…
The human male has a quite-different experience “on the average” from females from the nascence of reasoning to arriving at adulthood, somewhere imprecisely between 15 and 25 years for most. Quite different from female people, quite different in surprisingly inter-culturally durable ways. The most significant mean-difference is physicality. Men are testosterone-infused with an all-to-easy proclivity to resort to physical competition when mental prowess doesn’t satisfy need for “a win”. As in “you want to take this outside, bro?” … that kind of thing.
BUT, the thing is that something else is gained in that physicality, which is rarely (and I claim “if ever” ) allowed as a positive outcome. Namely, just per the Mackay quote, males learn to work together, to tug the oars cooperatively, to put aside their petty differences temporarily, in order to get something bigger than any one man’s ability done. If in so doing fights break out, the fighters will have at it, then stop. Usually the victor actually helps the vanquished to his feet. And with remarkably high intercultural conservation, the combatants often become friends.
At the same time, in that men-think-as-herds quote comes another even more thoughtful observation: men at an early age do the same thing, and learn thru their teens that tho’ group-think is the norm, it also very often is ill-founded. Men tend later in life to distrust group-think, since in their own direct and vicariously experienced friends’ lives, have observed case after case of group-think turning into group-stink.
There are plenty of behavioral psychologists, both male and female, who can cited in quintuplicate the propensity of women to NOT have the group-think-distrust motivation, as a rule. Theirs is a tribe that prefers group-think in almost all abstract circumstance. It is given the rubric of “consensus”, but it remains usually-unfounded group-think.
Anyway, I’m sure to have pîssed off no small part of this thread’s readership. In that I apologize, I supposed. But I also ask those offended: are these observations really so far from reality?
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
The author should concentrate on his math and signal processing technique he is using more and not waste time on the issues of crop yield. He makes a very strong claim. Did he prove it? No, he has to prove his point beyond any doubt that CO2 is lagging behind Earth temperature. To do so he must define the lag parameter and how he calculates it. Showing pictures is not good enough. Science shouldn’t be a Rorschach test. Furthermore he should do sensitivity analysis to check how the result (i.e., the lag time) is dependent/sensitive to the pre-filtering of signals.
unka – kindly read the paper AND the spreadsheet. If you want to do more statistics or signal processing, be my guest. If my hypo is correct, which it is, then there will be much more good work to be done.
I have read the pdf of your write up. The burden of proof is on you. Perhaps you should try to publish if you feel so strongly about it where you could show and justify and defend your methodology. Which apparently you are not interested because it seems you more care for conclusion and crop yields and so on arguments. You want to avenge in argument on big issues. But you have to decide if you want to do science’s hard work or propaganda. We already have enough propagandists on the other side like Mann or Hansen. At least Hansen at some point in his life was doing decent science. And you do not have credentials (zero publications) to make any impact in propaganda just on the basis of your observations that you present in poorly argued manuscript so nobody cares to look into it and verify it.
I am on your side. I wish you were right. But I am afraid that you are not.
Hi unka,
Please read the Excel spreadsheet and review the math and the plots.
There is the raw data, the remarkably close correlations in the data, there is a hypothesized mechanism, confirmation of that hypo, and there is the ability to accurately predict global temperatures ~4 months in the future.
What more do you want in 12 pages?
More CO2 does not increase the optical thickness of the atmosphere:
Positive feedback in CO2 radiative forcing model is a myth. Atmospheric humidity does not increase with rising CO2.
Basic GHGE CO2 radiative forcing model says OLR leaving earth decreases with more CO2. Because more OLR is trapped by more CO2. This is another myth.
Mark Pawelek
“More CO2 does not increase the optical thickness of the atmosphere…”
But that is not the point. The point is, as noted by Michael Moon in a previous guest post wrkitten by Kilty:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/a-third-look-at-radiation-versus-temperature/
that increasing the amount of CO2
– elevates the altitude at which CO2’s IR reemissions leave Earth to outer space;
– lowers the temperature at which these reemissions take place;
and thus
– lowers the amount of energy leaving the planet, and increase the imbalance.
This has been described in 2011 by two French scientists:
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf?sequence=1
(unfortunately in French).
A further interesting point is from their point of view that continuous CO2 increases might over the long term contribute to a reduction of the atmospheric window by… water vapor.
Wait and see, huh?
Rgds
J.-P. D.
That’s not an explanation, it’s petitio principii. A rise in the ERL requires a priori heating to loft the atmospheric molecules to greater height. So, it is basically saying that if the atmosphere heats up, the atmosphere will heat up.
Christopher, I deal with criticism every day, and have no problem with it. Ferdinand E and I have had a civil debate about points we disagree upon for eleven years, because Ferdinand is polite and respectful. You are destructive – you take angry potshots from the bushes but do not offer constructive improvements. You are childish, rude and disrespectful, so I have no time for you.
(He has been caught with serious POLICY VIOLATIONS, which means you will no longer have to put up with his unproductive statements) SUNMOD
Those alarmists who have faith in Evolution should pay close attention to the fact that CO2 optimization levels for most plant life are a small multiple of today’s levels. However much one believes that today’s CO2 levels and today’s temperature levels are optimum, if they do not represent an equilibrium then we need to be prepared to adjust ourselves to a changing climate, rather than trying to maintain the earth’s climate in a non-equilibrium state.
It is certainly unreasonable to believe that a combination of wind turbines and tax policy can ever possibly hope to maintain the plant in a non-equilibrium state and policies trying to achieve that unachievable goal are irrational.
SteveO wrote:
“It is certainly unreasonable to believe that a combination of wind turbines and tax policy can ever possibly hope to maintain the planet in a non-equilibrium state and policies trying to achieve that unachievable goal are irrational.”
I agree Steve – the Green New Deal and its clones are delusional nonsense – a scientific and economic train wreck. I have known this for decades.
A carbon tax is an irrational concept, based on false science – all it does is increase the cost of everything.
Allan, your humble fonz no longer shows up here because of the endless trolling. (you have my sympathies… 😖) i did manage to leave one comment on the very top of the page beneath your first. The temperature relationship goes the whole length of the data set back to 1850 (matching core data). Please take out the integral feature of temps on my graph to see exactly how i got there. Nice to see Bart is articulating his position in tip top form. (in the past, it oft seemed like he didn’t quite get there) Hopefully it won’t take future cooling for people to begin to finally see the obvious. Granted, we can always use more snow here in New Orleans. (but, never let it be said that the fonz is selfish — aaay!)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1850/scale:0.25/offset:0.1/integral/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/scale:0.25/offset:0.1/trend
Fonzie,
The match between CO2 increase from emissions since 1900 is much better than of the temperature integral and if you go back to the LIA the integral approach gets nowhere. Here since 1900:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1900_2011_B.jpg
Only for the period 1960-current, there is little difference between the methods…
Hello Ferdinand, i used to use your graph all the time. But, i got tired of explaining to people that you used Bart’s numbers which were not scaled to perfection. i actually asked you about your temp data having come from him. So, i went over to WFT myself and made my own graph using my very own little hands. (it’s amazing what an idiot in a leather jacket can do… ☹️) When using the proper scale, matching slopes perfectly, the difference is only 10 ppm. Not the 20 ppm which you see in your graph. Further more, the data is very good going all the way back to 1850. So, 10 ppm is not very far off from the 5 ppm discrepancy with your calculation from emissions. And i very much doubt that your emissions calculation would look very pretty going back to 1850. Also, going back even further than that… It’s been a while since i’ve done it, so i’m going to get a little murky on you here. The correlation also seems to hold for several hundred years. Just by eyeballing ipcc temp reconstructions and comparing it with ice core data (a la Middleton), it was easy to see that when temps went above a certain temp the co2 numbers grew. And when they went below, they fell. Purely unscientific, that i know. But, i was quite stunned to see it none the less. Of course, the whole correlation falls apart at some point way back as we both know. That would be a nice discussion topic for another day. (i don’t want to get long winded here) Would it be too difficult to make your graph using the proper scale* and taking both emissions & temperature calculations back to 1850? It’s a beauty of a graph. Tis a shame that the right data was not used. (seems like a lot of effort went into making it)
*borrow mine. just remove the integral feature on the hadsstsh series and viola…
When using the proper scale, matching slopes perfectly, the difference is only 10 ppm. Not the 20 ppm which you see in your graph. Further more, the data is very good going all the way back to 1850. So, 10 ppm is not very far off from the 5 ppm discrepancy with your calculation from emissions.
These numbers, of course, are maximum discrepancies…
Hi Fonz – great to hear from you!
Hope you and yours are all well.
Best personal regards, Allan
Allan, here’s my comment from way atop the page just in case you didn’t get a chance to read it. There may be an interesting tidbit or two in it. (it refers to the graph that i have posted above ferdinand’s comment):
Allan et al, the correlation also holds nicely back to 1850. There is at most a 10 ppm difference between ice cores and co2 as calculated using temperature data. Ferdinand did this using bart’s numbers (which were not accurate) back to 1900 and got at most a 20 ppm difference. He also got the perfect match at the turn of the century. i left the data up to the right of the graph. Just remove the integral feature on the temperature series to see the data used and how it was accurately scaled. In 1850, ice cores tell us that co2 stood at 287 ppm. Add to that the 120+ ppm that you see in the graph and you get the approximate co2 level that we see today. (about 410 ppm)…
Epilogue
Thank to (almost) everyone for your comments. There were a number of straw men arguments and a number of red herring topics that were irrelevant to my paper – typically arguments about things I did NOT say. Other statements, such as suggestions of “spurious correlation”, etc. were simply false nonsense.
I suggest that my paper stands intact after being tested in this crucible.
Repeating the Abstract:
Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.
Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature changes, then tropical humidity changes, then atmospheric temperature changes, then CO2 changes.
The velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature changes and CO2 changes occur ~9 months later (MacRae 2008).
The process that causes the ~9-month average lag of CO2 changes after temperature changes is hypothesized and supported by observations.
The ~9-month lag, +/- several months, averages 1/4 of the full-period duration of the variable global temperature cycle, which averages ~3 years.
Based on the above observations, global temperatures drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations much more than CO2 drives temperature.
Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 must be very low, less than ~1C/(2*CO2) and probably much less.
There will be no catastrophic warming and no significant increase in chaotic weather due to increasing CO2 concentrations.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 clearly causes significantly improved crop yields, and may cause minor, beneficial global warming.
Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life.
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc may also increase atmospheric CO2. The increase of CO2 is clearly beneficial.
“Green energy” schemes are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily because of the fatal flaw of intermittency.
There is no widely-available, cost-effective means of solving the flaw of intermittency in grid-connected wind and solar power generation.
Electric grids have been destabilized, electricity costs have soared and Excess Winter Deaths have increased due to green energy schemes.
As stated earlier, my data analysis (https://www.climateauditor.com) largely agrees with your paper. Analysis of UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature data and CO2 concentration data from a number of sites around the globe led me to the conclusions that
1. Temperature is independent of CO2 concentration.
2. Temperature directly or indirectly determines the rate of change of CO2.
3. The seasonal variation in CO2 shows that most of the atmospheric CO2 is generated by terrestrial life forms.
4. Fourier spectra of both temperature and rate of change of CO2 are similar and may indicate that the ever-changing configuration of the Solar System is the cause of temperature and climate change with no indication of any anthropogenic cause.
In looking for an explanation of difference in my conclusions relative to those of the UN IPCC, I see that the IPCC attribute the supposed warming to atmospheric CO2 which both absorbs and re-radiates infrared at wavelengths of 15 and 4.3 microns. The Wien formula relating wavelength to temperature determines that the 15 micron wavelength is the peak for a body at -80 degrees Celsius while the 4.3 micron wavelength is the peak for a body at 400 degrees Celsius.
The Earth is not going to be warmed by heat from a source at -80 degrees C as it is already hotter than that. Furthermore, applying Planck’s formula to an Earth at 15 deg C gives the proportion of energy density in the CO2 4.3 micron band, width 0.5 microns, to be 0.003 of the total energy density. Only part of this will be captured by CO2, only part of that, less than half, will be re-radiated towards the Earth’s surface and only part might reach the surface to cause heating of what would appear to be an insignificant amount.
Hence the so-called greenhouse effect is untenable. The temperature at the Earth’s surface is purely a result of the old-fashioned Universal Gas Laws.
Bevan,
There is a problem with point 3: the seasonal changes show a drop in CO2 with higher temperatures, while the year by year up to multi-millennial changes are showing an increase of CO2 with higher temperatures…
Both seasonal and year by year variability are dominated by vegetation, but opposite to each other, while the longer term changes are dominated by the (deep) oceans…
Further:
The Earth is not going to be warmed by heat from a source at -80 degrees C as it is already hotter than that.
CO2 lasers use only the 10.6 μm wavelength of the peak at -80 degrees C to melt steel at around 1200 degrees C. Seems that your theory doesn’t fit reality…
https://engineeringinsider.org/co2-laser-principle-construction-working/
Ferdinand,
Because temperature determines the rate of change of CO2 concentration, the long term trend for CO2 is the integral of the temperature over time. CO2 does not decrease over the long term until temperature drops to a level at which the CO2 rate is zero. I suspect that level to be zero Centigrade or below at which point water freezes and is no longer available to life which is the source of the CO2. Under that condition the solubility of CO2 has increased markedly and the atmospheric concentration diminishes due to precipitated in rain. Try reading my web site.
The Earth’s atmosphere is not a laser. There is also laser eye surgery and laser hair removal. A laser has nothing to do with the unprovoked release of the energy of a CO2 molecule that has been set into a particular vibration mode by the absorption of a photon of that energy.
Bevan,
To start with: temperature doesn’t determines the rate of change of CO2 concentration, the rate of change in temperature determines the rate of change of CO2 concentration. That has exactly the same variability as temperature variability, but no slope. It has a small offset from zero and its integral is the influence of temperature: CO2 in the atmosphere changes with the temperature of the sea surface with about 16 ppmv/K, that is the change in solubility of CO2 in seawater and has zero influence on the slope of the CO2 rate of change:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
There is a lag between dT/dt variability and dCO2/dt variability (and between T and CO2 variability), which shows cause and effect. There is no lag between T and dCO2/dt, thus no cause and effect can be established.
There is not the slightest difference between the excitation of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and in a CO2 laser, neither is there a difference at the receiver side if the photon comes from a molecule CO2 in the atmosphere or from laser. In both cases, a “black body” will absorb that photon.
In the case of the atmosphere more total energy is emitted than returned, thus indeed the atmosphere can’t warm up the surface, but the surface loses less energy with GHGs than without, because part of the energy is returned to the surface. With the same energy input from the sun, the surface will remain warmer.